And So It Begins .... Trump & The Law

[Danny Bateman]

Obama: "If I watched Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me either."

Trump: "The failing, phony New York Times has printed many vicious lies about me and I should sue them."

Not sure we can equate the two. One is clearly a lighthearted joke, the other is an attempt to attack what's legitimately one of America's best news sources.

 

To be honest, this was already a problem, wasn't it? Lots of people are easily swayed to believe that news sources that don't fit their narrative are not credible. Republicans love Fox News, Democrats love MSNBC, etc... It can become one big case of confirmation bias. Trump has decided exacerbated the problem. He's turned it up to 10 and broken the knob off by trying to undermine any news source, no matter how legitimate, if it criticizes HIM... at all.

That has a distinctively fascist bent to it. The guy has skin so thin he's posturing like he's going to sue members of the other party and major newspapers before day 1. I'd love to see him follow through on any of these. The Times is no legal pushover, Reid would have people willing to represent him, and the discovery process of the lawsuit to find out the truthfulness of what they said would likely damage and embarrass him.

 

As to him corrupting federal institutions to target rivals, isn't that exactly what Christie did with Bridgegate? He was trying to target a rival and got caught with a hand in the cookie jar. If Trump appoints lackeys to lead federal institutions that would look the other way while he tried to target people illicitly, we're going to need some very brave whistleblowers inside those institutions to bring forth the truth for the rest of us.

[TGHusker]

Speaking of legal issues, The Amer Univ prof who predicted Trump's victory also believes he'll be impeached.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/11/prediction-professor-who-called-trumps-big-win-also-made-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/?tid=sm_fb

 

Few prognosticators predicted a Donald Trump victory ahead of Tuesday night. Polls showed Hillary Clinton comfortably ahead, and much of America (chiefly the media) failed to anticipate the wave of pro-Trump support that propelled him to victory. But a Washington, D.C.-based professor insisted that Trump was lined up for a win — based on the idea that elections are “primarily a reflection on the performance of the party in power.”

 

At the end of our September conversation, Lichtman made another call: that if elected, Trump would eventually be impeached by a Republican Congress that would prefer a President Mike Pence — someone whom establishment Republicans know and trust.

“I'm going to make another prediction,” he said. “This one is not based on a system; it's just my gut. They don't want Trump as president, because they can't control him. He's unpredictable. They'd love to have Pence — an absolutely down-the-line, conservative, controllable Republican. And I'm quite certain Trump will give someone grounds for impeachment, either by doing something that endangers national security or because it helps his pocketbook.”

So while Republican voters clearly came home before Nov. 8 — network exit polls show 90 percent of GOP voters cast ballots for Trump — it's less clear that the party leadership is on board. (Lichtman actually isn't the only person to predict a Trump impeachment; this morning, the New York Times's David Brooks suggested that a Trump impeachment or resignation was “probably” in the cards sometime within the next year.)

 

 

I'm not a David Brooks fan, but here is his take.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opinion/the-view-from-trump-tower.html?smid=tw-share&_r=2

Donald Trump is probably going to make the G.O.P. the party of individual/closed. He’s going to start with the traditional Republican agenda of getting government out of the way, and he’s going to add walls, protectionism and xenophobia. That will leave people isolated in the face of the challenges of the information age economy, and it will close off the dynamism and diversity that always marked this crossroads of the nation.

The Democrats are probably going to be the party of social/closed. The coming Sanders-Warren party will advocate proposals that help communities with early education programs and the like, but that party will close off trade, withdraw from the world, close off integration with hyper-race-conscious categories and close off debate with political correctness.

 

Which is why I’ve been thinking we need a third party that is social/open. This compassionate globalist party would support the free trade and skilled immigration that fuel growth. But it would also flood the zone for those challenged in the high-skill global economy — offering programs to rebuild community, foster economic security and boost mobility. It would integrate the white working class and minority groups by emphasizing that we are all part of a single American idea.

Write A Comment

Trump’s bigotry, dishonesty and promise-breaking will have to be denounced. We can’t go morally numb. But he needs to be replaced with a program that addresses the problems that fueled his ascent.

After all, the guy will probably resign or be impeached within a year. The future is closer than you think.

[zoogs]

That's a compelling argument about impeachment. I think the only flaw in it (and it's a serious one) is Trump, not Pence, won this election. It would be a Republican Civil War to oust him, and the GOP has shown zero ability nor willingness to pay the political cost.

 

What you are describing kind of sounds like the proposed HRC administration, honestly. Openness to immigration, federal programs targeted at economic security and mobility, America's international role, #strongertogether. There's a protectionist wing in the Democratic Party, perhaps, but Clinton/Kaine themselves have quite traditional free trade instincts and would have found willing allies on that front. Pity.

[TGHusker]

That's a compelling argument about impeachment. I think the only flaw in it (and it's a serious one) is Trump, not Pence, won this election. It would be a Republican Civil War to oust him, and the GOP has shown zero ability nor willingness to pay the political cost.

 

What you are describing kind of sounds like the proposed HRC administration, honestly. Openness to immigration, federal programs targeted at economic security and mobility, America's international role, #strongertogether. There's a protectionist wing in the Democratic Party, perhaps, but Clinton/Kaine themselves have quite traditional free trade instincts and would have found willing allies on that front. Pity.

David Brooks, a Republican, was a Hillary supporter.

 

I don agree wt the bold. I don't see it happening unless Congressional leaders end up bumping heads big time wt Trump on immigration or some other radical change. The House is constantly running for re-election and I don't think they want to buck those who voted for Trump in 2 years.

[zoogs]

What you say about David Brooks is equally true of a great many Republican commentators, Republican-leaning newspapers, the Republican foreign policy establishment, past Republican presidents and politicians.

 

It is in no way true of the current Republican Party.

 

Trump is supposedly this unacceptable guy -- over 80% of them (well over 80%?) stuck with him, endorsing or declaring they would vote for him, all the way through. There were many opportunities for an "exit ramp". Many opportunities to ignite that Civil War and shed Trump. Trump won every single one of those battles -- decisively. Every time it looked like actual GOP politicians were about to jump ship, they were forcibly pulled back in line. No?

[ColoNoCoHusker]

That's a compelling argument about impeachment. I think the only flaw in it (and it's a serious one) is Trump, not Pence, won this election. It would be a Republican Civil War to oust him, and the GOP has shown zero ability nor willingness to pay the political cost.

 

What you are describing kind of sounds like the proposed HRC administration, honestly. Openness to immigration, federal programs targeted at economic security and mobility, America's international role, #strongertogether. There's a protectionist wing in the Democratic Party, perhaps, but Clinton/Kaine themselves have quite traditional free trade instincts and would have found willing allies on that front. Pity.

 

What he says is "grounds for impeachment". Quite frankly EVERY POTUS in my lifetime and probably ever could fit this bill. It does not mean impeachment proceeding will be undertaken nor does it mean they will be successful. It simply means a justification to start them.

 

Impeachment is purely a political process. In the Constitution, grounds for impeachment are "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". The Constitution only specifically defines treason. Bribery is well established in American law. "High crimes and misdemeanors" is highly subjective. It can be ANY perceived allegation of misconduct.

 

Common examples in history are: abuse of authority, intimidation, misuse of assets, misappropriating government funds, failure to supervise, maladministration, dereliction of duty, appointing unfit subordinates, suppressing petitions, granting warrants without cause, conduct unbecoming, or inappropriately using the influence of office.

 

I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that Trump will give grounds for impeachment. There is no way Republicans are going to impeach a Republican president unless Trump turns out to be worse than everyone's worst fears. Those fears are pretty extreme no matter how it is viewed.

[teachercd]

This is starting to sound like House of Cards stuff! Interesting!