BREAKING: The House can start impeachment against Trump now

[agenasolva]

Much of the public is eager for the impeachment of President Trump. A poll last week found that 40 percent of Americans already “support” impeaching him, and the same survey — by highly regarded Public Policy Polling — found that another 12 percent are “not sure.”

From the outset of his presidency, Trump has been violating the U.S. Constitution in a way that we have not seen before and should not tolerate. It’s time for members of Congress to get the impeachment process underway.

The Constitution states that to start impeachment proceedings, a document or “resolution calling for a committee investigation of charges against the officer in question” must be introduced in the House of Representatives. Such a move would have been appropriate from the moment that Trump became president.

As documented in depth on the ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org website — where more than 600,000 people have already signed a petition for impeachment — the president continues to violate two “emoluments” clauses in the Constitution. One prohibits any gifts or benefits from foreign governments, and the other prohibits the same from the U.S. government or any U.S. state.

.....

[link:http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/318045-the-house-can-start-impeachment-against-trump-now|

[Ohioblue22]

1. on the hill there is an article of pelosi saying there are no grounds

for impeachment

[agenasolva]

3. How could there be no grounds? He's violating the Constituion

On top of being a tyrant dictator

[Ohioblue22]

6. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/318075-pelosi-no-grounds-for-impeaching-trump

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/318075-pelosi-no-grounds-for-impeaching-trump

[elleng]

8. [There] are grounds for displeasure and unease in the public about the performance

of this president, who has acted in a way that is strategically incoherent, that is incompetent and that is reckless,” Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. “And that is not grounds for impeachment.'

[elleng]

26. Seems like that, doesn't it?

I've liked Pelosi in the past, but in some matters I just DON'T.

[angrychair]

29. I am a Democrat

But I lost a lot of respect for Congress in general when I realized that it was a common practice, including Pelosi, to invest or change investments based on non-public knowledge about testimony or votes that may impact a company or industry.
When it became public knowledge, congress voted to ban the practice but then 6 months later quietly reinstated it.

[elleng]

30. Right, and the reinstatement was encouraged by Canter.

[radical noodle]

34. High crimes and misdemeanors

It can't be done twice. We have to wait until the Republicans have the stomach for it because we wouldn't get it through.

It also worries me that if trump were out and Pence were in, the media and all the protestors would lose interest in what's going on. Pence is sneaky, he does things quietly so one might not even know what he was up to. He tried to make a propaganda arm in Indiana and only when caught did he back down. Someone was on their toes that time, but other things happened under Pence and before him, Daniels, that should never have taken place.

[tazkcmo]

11. From the same article

"Pelosi said she’d been optimistic that Democrats in Congress would be able to forge an effective working relationship with Trump..."

Really? I find that astonishing given his well documented 70 year history. My point is I'm not sure Rep Pelosi has been watching the same guy I have.

[elleng]

27. or something!!

[Barack_America]

17. Nothing could be so heinous to force Dems to show a spine.

There will never be "grounds", even if there are.

[alarimer]

21. There are at least as many grounds as there were for Clinton.

Starting with his conflicts of interest. But maybe we just need to wait until it is obvious that he has benefited personally from a decision.

I think there are bigger grounds for his being unfit under Amendment 25, section 4. He is unfit.

[elleng]

35. I tend to agree on both points, alarimer.

Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2017, 09:28 PM - Edit history (2)

Just heard Robert Reich say there are adequate grounds now, first he mentioned the 'emoluments clause.'

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of ...
Title of Nobility Clause - Wikipedia

The Resistance Report, February 6th, 2017

https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/videos/vb.142474049098533/1463582200321038/?type=2&theater¬if_t=live_video¬if_id=1486429332072095

[dixiegrrrrl]

39. The reason Trump is probably safe from impeachment has to do with majority votes

Impeachment starts in the House.

Republicans have a 47-seat advantage over the Democrats. in the House.
That means that a minimum of two dozen GOP lawmakers would have to be willing to work in tandem with the opposition party to bring down a Republican president.

And then two-thirds of the Senate (also in Republican hands) would have to vote to convict.

Clinton was impeached (and acquitted by the Senate) when both chambers were held by the GOP.

[NurseJackie]

2. Great editorial. But ...

... I'm not sure if I'd call it "breaking". (I fell for the click-bait headline... silly me.)

[nycbos]

4. It is not happening people.

Last edited Mon Feb 6, 2017, 03:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Lets start registering voters, getting them the IDs they need when needed, canvassing and planning for 2018.

[tazkcmo]

12. It might still

But yes, register, educate and motivate.

[krakfiend]

33. yes, that is more important

impeaching trump will only elevate pence. in some ways, he is even worse. it is better to motivate the people who were not motivated last election.

[Trust Buster]

5. There are no grounds for impeachment. This kind of talk only strengthens the Rethuglicans.

They not only would love Pence but would love to point the finger at Democrats. Let us be a serious Resistance.

[elleng]

7. High crimes and misdemeanors

Learn all about it.

'High crimes and misdemeanors is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons.[1] A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice [John] Marshall wrote of another such phrase:

It is a technical term. It is used in a very old statute of that country whose language is our language, and whose laws form the substratum of our laws. It is scarcely conceivable that the term was not employed by the framers of our constitution in the sense which had been affixed to it by those from whom we borrowed it."[2]

The constitutional convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well.[citation needed] Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery.[3] Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.[citation needed]'>>>

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

[herding cats]

10. Thank you!

I'm tired of pie-in-the-sky stories being presented as facts.

[elleng]

13. You're welcome, cats.

I'm a lawyer, so looking into such as this is part of what I do/have done. A good discussion is necessary, imo.

[angrychair]

23. So to be clear

Using the power of your office, just the fact you are POTUS, if not acting overtly but by suggestion, to steer foreign governments to do business with your companies or that you receive payment from a federal department you as president oversee, does not met the standard from your post above that states "The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve"?

[elleng]

24. There is no clarity in these matters, angrychair,

so that may or may not be a good thing.

[tazkcmo]

15. Great post!

This "precedent" does not need to literally "break the law" to be impeached. He merely has to lose confidence in his ability to properly govern through miscues, negligence or just poor decision making. In the present case, I believe it would be quite easy to prove him mentally incompetent to carry out his duties as sworn to in the oath.

[elleng]

25. Something like that, I hope, tazkcmo.

There is more, the 25th Amendment. I'll post it shortly.

[starshine00]

37. I don't see why the republicans won't do this

to me it seems Trump through his affiliation with Russia is shifting our traditional allegiances with sunni muslims to the shia side of Iran/Syria. Sunni and Shia are enemies and this could cause huge problems in foreign policy. From where I sit it looks like a catastrophe and I can't imagine the republicans don't know this. I think they may be waiting for a time to act but then they will have another problem on their hands, an evangelical and they are already divided in their party between traditional conservatives and evangelicals. I really can't see them tolerating four years of Trump, though, not with how just the first two weeks has gone.

[LiberalLovinLug]

32. Then how in #%&# did they attempt the impeachment of Clinton for lying about a blow job?

And why is the word "misdemeanors" even in there? shouldn't it be simply "high crimes"?

[oldtime dfl_er]

9. Her extreme

equivocation bothers me.

[jmg257]

14. Wow - even Waters said he's not there yet.

During a press conference this morning that was also attended by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Waters expanded on her comments, now claiming that she’s not yet pushing for POTUS to be impeached but saying that Trump is leading himself down that path.

She continued, “Let me just say that the statement I made was a statement in response to questions and pleas I’m getting from many citizens across this country.
Waters would go on to say that “eventually we’ve got to do something about him.”

http://www.mediaite.com/online/democratic-rep-on-trump-i-have-not-called-for-the-impeachment-yet-hes-doing-it-himself/

She sees it as the way to make sure he doesn't serve 4 years.

[redstatebluegirl]

16. Bannon is pretty smart, he won't let him go that far.

They will push it right to the edge without giving them a reason to impeach.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

18. When it gets to 55%, the Republican Senate will take notice & signal the House, UNLESS ...

Unless tRump becomes counterproductive to the Republicans sooner and they decide that Pence would be more productive.

Unless Putin releases the Pee Tape and/or other incriminating stuff like tax returns. But those might quickly put the needle over 55 anyway.

Unless there is found evidence of collusion with Putin or blackmail against tRump. But again it might move the meter over 55.

[Blue Idaho]

19. Trump is the battering ram

It's his job to write as many controversial EOs as possible. As soon as his negatives get high enough - the republicans will impeach him and install Pence as their long term resident of the Oval Office.

[jmowreader]

31. Which won't happen until 2019

If they want Pence in the White House, they want him for more than one term. According to the Constitution, here are the time limits for presidents:

President who started out as a VP and replaced his president before two years of the replaced president's term had elapsed: the rest of the replaced president's term plus one of his own. Gerald Ford would have fallen into this category, but he lost the 1976 election so it's a moot point.

President who was elected: two full terms.

President who started out as a VP and replaced his president after two years of the replaced president's term had elapsed: the rest of the replaced president's term plus two of his own. If they're going to shitcan Donald, this is what they'll do - they'll kettle Disastrous Don until 1/21/2019 to keep him from destroying the country, then file articles of impeachment against him.

[Blue Idaho]

36. Thanks for the information!

I did not know this!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

20. Calling for his impeachment at this point is truly jumping the gun.

Yes, he's done some awful things, but at this point he still has the support of almost all the Congressional Republicans. Not to mention the Congressional Democrats who naively think they can work with him. The fools.

We're going to have to experience something so awful that it is obvious to the most casual observer that he deserves removal from office. Perhaps if the trip to Great Britain actually happens, he'll try to kiss the Queen on the cheek, because he did the same with Michelle Obama. He's completely oblivious to most standards of decent behavior, and he probably hasn't a clue that the Queen is vastly different from a First Lady. If he does touch the Queen, other than to shake hands, he'll be immediately reviled by every single Brit and most every other sentient human on the planet.

THAT'S the sort of thing, as trivial as it might seem right now, that will finally push the Congressional Republicans over the edge. Not that I'm predicting that specific event. Anyone here can think of many equally plausible scenarios. My point is, that the little things will add up rather quickly. Personally, I give him about six months.

[elleng]

28. Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

The Twenty-fifth Amendment (Amendment XXV) to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities. It supersedes the ambiguous wording of Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution, which does not expressly state whether the Vice President becomes the President or Acting President if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office or is otherwise unable to discharge the powers of the presidency.[1] The Twenty-fifth Amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967.[2] . . .

Section 4: Vice Presidential–Cabinet declaration[edit]
Section 4 is the only part of the amendment that has never been invoked.[25] It allows the Vice President, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide", to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As with Section 3, the Vice President would become Acting President.

Section 4 is meant to be invoked should the President's incapacitation prevent him from discharging his duties, but he is unable or unwilling to provide the written declaration called for by Section 3. The President may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House.

Should the Vice President and Cabinet believe the President is still disabled, they may within four days of the President's declaration submit another declaration that the President is incapacitated. If not already in session, the Congress must then assemble within 48 hours. The Congress has 21 days to decide the issue. If within the 21 days two-thirds of each house of Congress vote that the President is incapacitated, the Vice President would "continue" to be Acting President. Should the Congress resolve the issue in favor of the President, or make no decision within the 21 days allotted, then the President would "resume" discharging the powers and duties of his office. The use of the words "continue" and "resume" imply that the Vice President remains Acting President while Congress deliberates.

However, the President may again submit a written declaration of recovery to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House. That declaration could be responded to by the Acting President and the Cabinet in the same way as stated earlier. The specified 21-day Congressional procedure would start again.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Vice_Presidential.E2.80.93Cabinet_declaration

[Takket]

38. one thing about impeachment.........

if you are going to do it, it has to be airtight and perfect the first time. especially with a GOP congress. they have to feel they have NO CHOICE but to impeach.

we all want this done but it has to be done carefully. you get one crack at it and if you blow it, you (the dems) will have not a shred of credibility left.

there is a quote from a TV show called The Wire: "If you come at the King, you best not miss".