caucus99percent free-range politics, organic community

He really is mentally unstable and a megalomaniac who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone but himself. Holding the country hostage for his wall that he promised Mexico would pay for. How could people even think that he would be able to keep that promise?

Here's some good news.

France's yellow vest mov't gets Macron gov't to say it will now crack down on execs who avoid paying taxes. What an admission! W/out mass street protests, Macron's gov't lets execs shift tax burdens onto everyone else.

Other countries: learn this lesson.https://t.co/MDchTpUjI6

— Richard D. Wolff (@profwolff) January 4, 2019

Will we ever get the guts to do this? Now would be a great time for federal workers to just walk out since they are not being paid for work anyway. TSA workers are calling in sick by the hundreds and just think about what could happen if others joined them? The air traffic controllers could bring the country to its knees for a few days or weeks if they put on yellow vests.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:45pm

I hope they do.

@snoopydawg Not getting paid makes a pretty rational reason for it...more people would understand that.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Daenerys on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 10:46pm

Yeah...

@Bisbonian and nobody knows how long it will last. No pay=no work. Maybe this will finally be the catalyst.

—

This shit is bananas.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 11:04pm

Ha! Wouldn't that be great?

@Daenerys

Congress dicks around with people's lives and so people tell them f'ck you we have had enough and then it's what starts the yellow vest movement here. Yippee!

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:11am

Why would

@snoopydawg anyone think that Trump promised that Mexico would pay for a wall, regardless of what he said?

What, Trump runs Mexico now?

—

dfarrah

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:39am

Why ask me?

I have been told that this is why people voted for Trump. They want the wall and they heard him make that promise all through the primary. And they are the ones that want Trump to keep the government shut down until he gets his $5.6 billion for it. The hell with how many people this hurts.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:44am

So it's the voters

Fault for holding accountable what our elected officials actually say? That's some kind of logic there.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Deja on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:46am

Prolly because he said he'd make Mexico pay for it

More than once. Of course the rational ones among us knew he could never pull it off, but he said it more than once, nonetheless.

My very first thought was that it would be built by "illegals", otherwise, double or even triple the estimated cost.

Side note: I halfway heard a reporter last night mention an executive order to use Pentegon funds to pay for it. Maybe giving the Dept of Death and Destruction more than was requested was his Ace in the Hole, all along?

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 2:46pm

Exactly.

@Deja It was one of the ridiculous comments he made.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 2:08pm

Unemployment is at a low

(However you measure it) so now would be a great time for tsa workers to jump ship to private security jobs.

In fact, that goes for the entire public sector. But maybe that is the plan - lose workers and then have to hire them back through body shops when the shutdown ends. Maybe this is just a stealth plan to privatize the federal bureaucracy and make a few more bucks for his buddies.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 3:44pm

We thinking on the same wavelength

@Hawkfish

I too have been wondering if there is a hidden agenda to this shutdown this time. Gawd it's getting tiring being this cynical.

The parks are getting hammered by trash and feces and a lot of damage is being done and it's going to take lots of money to repair them. In comes some company with deep pockets...

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 6:02pm

Same here, but

@snoopydawg I read a story the other day from someone visiting some national park who said none of the bad stuff you described was happening. But that was just one park and one trail.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Hawkfish on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:33pm

I hear that native Hawaiians

Are taking care of national parks like Haleakala on Maui. Which is another unintended consequence for the small-handed one’s brainless ego trip.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:07am

It wouldn't be the first time we had a mentally unstable

person as President.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:43am

^^^This!!!^^^

Impeaching Trump won't change anything except for the face of our government. This crap has been happening in the background for decades or even back to the beginning of our government, but it's been hidden away from us by 'charming' congress members and presidents who tell us lies about how if we let them play the president and congress critters then they will work hard for us.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:18am

"We're going to help Main Street!"

@gulfgal98

Opportunity....opportunity....work hard!

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:25pm

What are the reasons this new dem party politician gives

for impeaching the motherfucker? Anyone know. I tried searching but it's all about this current thing in which she didn't elaborate. I'd like to see how hypocritical she is.
I'm sure it isn't because Trump hired the swamp, the dems do that too.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:33pm

Ah come on BA, I wouldnt read that much

@Big Al into it. She said itin a bar, high on the idea she was actually elected .

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:39pm

Yeah, why hold the things our elected officials say

About their congressional powers to a standard of scrutiny if they're on "our" team.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:48pm

She did explain her reasons

Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump

in a followup op ed.

Edit to add link:

We already have overwhelming evidence that the president has committed impeachable offenses, including, just to name a few: obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.
...
Those who say we must wait for Special Counsel Mueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction. There is no requirement whatsoever that a president be charged with or be convicted of a crime before Congress can impeach him. They also ignore the fact that many of the impeachable offenses committed by this president are beyond the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.

I personally doubt this will happen. She has zero power to do anything, being a newbie in Congress. But she did write a followup article that lays out her position.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:17pm

violating the emoluments clause

This is what he should be impeached for. He's doing government business at his golf course in Florida. I don't know if this is against policy, but I'm betting that he walks a very fine line there. Yesterday he opened up the old post office in DC where his Trump tower is located which was closed because of the shutdown.

I'm not so sure about his pardoning people since Bush did it too. Libby and wasn't there someone else who he pardoned? Brain freeze ..

Obama also did those things with immigrant children and families. As long as he isn't impeached for trumped up charges from Russia Gate I'm okay with it happening. This would keep his supporters from rioting if there they saw that he had broken the law.

ETA

Russia Gate was cooked up by Hillary, the FBI and many people in Obama's administration and they should be charged for their actions. This involved crimes much higher than what Nixon was impeached for. I hope that the truth of this comes out some day.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:40am

What about Bill Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich at the

@snoopydawg
end of his term in office (Clinton’s, that is)?

I’m not rooting for the team in the blue jersey when they are engaged in the same behavior as team red.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:05pm

Ah yes, Marc Rich

@Lily O Lady

Good point about his being pardoned as Bill was walking out the door, but it's not okay for Trump to pardon sheriff Joe or anyone else that he has. Libby outed a CIA agent just to get back at her husband for telling the truth about Saddam's WMDs. I thought that it was Cheney who really did the deed and Libby took the fall for him.

Hillary Gate reminds me of the Fitzmas investigation. Huber is not doing what he's supposed to be doing just like Fitzpatrick didn't do with Plame Gate. I guess what Huber is really doing is Obama's Gate because of how far up the ladder it went. I wonder if the hotel that Nixons burglars played at was called Hilton or even Trump towers would we have gotten stuck with all of the Gates?

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:34pm

Thanks CS,

Submitted by CB on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:32am

Nothing to impeach Trump with

@CS in AZ
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SaND3tL-Y]

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 162

It is common knowledge by this point of the investigation that special counsel Robert Mueller has no collusion case against Donald Trump.

With William Barr set to take over the DOJ, it is now looking like Mueller's hope for an obstruction case against Trump is all but over...leaving the Mueller witch hunt with nothing more than a washed up porn star, a 1990's playboy centerfold, and some dubious claims that Trump somehow violated campaign finance law.

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris examine how President Trump's pick for attorney general, William Barr, has torn apart Mueller's investigation into potential obstruction of justice, calling it "legally insupportable" in an memo to the Justice Department earlier this year.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 9:07am

Not taking sides, just passing along information

@CB

because I’m neither a lawyer or a member of congress.

But, from the article, I do agree with this part:

While Congress has the impeachment power to prevent future harm to our government, prosecutors have the power to seek punishment for those who commit crimes. But it is not Mueller’s role to determine whether the president has committed impeachable offenses. That is the responsibility of the U.S. Congress.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:19am

I can't wait to see the evidence for this:

@CS in AZ "obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments."

The people who support impeachment of Trump remind me of the people who wanted Clinton removed from office. You sound exactly the same as they did, with the insults, the endless attempts to throw everything out to find if something sticks, and the deep analyses of his personality.

I predict a backlash against the effort. Anyone want to bet (a few bucks) for fun?

—

dfarrah

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 11:53am

CS in AZ didn't write that you know

She did explain her reasons

I'd take it up with the author if you have a beef.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:04pm

I’ve been reading more about impeachment this morning

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

and it turns out, it seems that Rashida Tlaib is entirely correct in her op ed. I’ll get to that below, but one thing, from what I’ve read and learned so far, is that the democrats have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of impeaching trump.

And we can know this because, very simply, they are hiding behind the mueller investigation, awaiting his report, blah blah — as if it has any relevance. Which, as this feisty new congresswoman writes in her op ed, it does not. And, they know it won’t lead to any criminal charges against trump. So, this then lets them off the hook from taking responsibility and moving forward with impeachment. Pelosi and other top democrats have signaled it won’t happen. Pinning it all on mueller is a total smoke screen.

Rashida Tlaib is absolutely going off script, by pushing the issue and saying openly, the Dems are dodging, specifically because they want to run against trump.

We are also now hearing the dangerous claim that initiating impeachment proceedings against this president is politically unwise and that, instead, the focus should now shift to holding the president accountable via the 2020 election. Such a claim places partisan gamesmanship over our country and our most vulnerable at this perilous moment in our nation’s history. Members of Congress have a sworn duty to preserve our Constitution. Leaving a lawless president in office for political points would be abandoning that duty.

And clearly it would not lead to his removal from office without 2/3 of the senate voting to do so. There is nowhere near enough senators willing to do that. Unless, perhaps, he follows through with keeping the government shut down going for ever. That might be a bridge too far, even for them. But even that is questionable.

So, first key point: despite the fact that her argument is sound regarding the grounds for the House to impeach him, it is not going to happen. She’s going rogue.

Second thing I want to bring up is the confusion about what actually are the legal and constitutional grounds for impeachment. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer or expert, so I went looking for information. And I found this very good plain English explanation, here.

It’s long (I’m still reading it) but by half way through it’s obvious that this new congresswoman knows what she is talking about. Some key quotes (I recommend reading the whole article).

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement that the president has to have been convicted of or indicted for any crime.

But wait, you ask what about high crimes and misdemeanors?

The essay is all about the meaning of that phrase.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
...
James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

[note: here it goes into all the various words that were considered and parsed, before arriving at the final version.]
...
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as 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. 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.

When it was adopted, this was how it was explained to the states for ratification.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

There’s a lot more... interesting explanation for anyone not well versed who wants to understand the process.

Ultimately, the takeaways are:

It’s not about whether or not trump committed any crimes or gets indicted.
The Mueller investigation is not necessary for or even relevant to impeachment. (Dems saying wait for mueller are dodging, and signaling they won’t impeach)
Trump’s general incompetence and his abuse of the public trust are valid grounds to impeach him.
Other presidents, probably all of them, could also have been impeached on these grounds. Most were not. That doesn’t mean trump gets a pass, imo. And if he did get impeached and the republican-controlled senate voted to remove him, his problematic behavior would have to extreme, even beyond what we’ve seen so far.
Most members of Congress could be impeached on the same grounds. That won’t happen either.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:19pm

Thanks for that further clarification on impeachment.

It's very helpful and interesting. So, an impeachment is like a censorship by the House. It need not be based on a crime. It could even be based on a loss of confidence. It's a black mark on the President's report card.

And, then, life goes on and the President continues in office. Perhaps he will try to improve his behavior.

However without a criminal felony somewhere in this mishigas, the Senate has nothing further to talk about.

Did I get that right?

#4.1.2.4.1

and it turns out, it seems that Rashida Tlaib is entirely correct in her op ed. I’ll get to that below, but one thing, from what I’ve read and learned so far, is that the democrats have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of impeaching trump.

And we can know this because, very simply, they are hiding behind the mueller investigation, awaiting his report, blah blah — as if it has any relevance. Which, as this feisty new congresswoman writes in her op ed, it does not. And, they know it won’t lead to any criminal charges against trump. So, this then lets them off the hook from taking responsibility and moving forward with impeachment. Pelosi and other top democrats have signaled it won’t happen. Pinning it all on mueller is a total smoke screen.

Rashida Tlaib is absolutely going off script, by pushing the issue and saying openly, the Dems are dodging, specifically because they want to run against trump.

We are also now hearing the dangerous claim that initiating impeachment proceedings against this president is politically unwise and that, instead, the focus should now shift to holding the president accountable via the 2020 election. Such a claim places partisan gamesmanship over our country and our most vulnerable at this perilous moment in our nation’s history. Members of Congress have a sworn duty to preserve our Constitution. Leaving a lawless president in office for political points would be abandoning that duty.

And clearly it would not lead to his removal from office without 2/3 of the senate voting to do so. There is nowhere near enough senators willing to do that. Unless, perhaps, he follows through with keeping the government shut down going for ever. That might be a bridge too far, even for them. But even that is questionable.

So, first key point: despite the fact that her argument is sound regarding the grounds for the House to impeach him, it is not going to happen. She’s going rogue.

Second thing I want to bring up is the confusion about what actually are the legal and constitutional grounds for impeachment. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer or expert, so I went looking for information. And I found this very good plain English explanation, here.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

It’s long (I’m still reading it) but by half way through it’s obvious that this new congresswoman knows what she is talking about. Some key quotes (I recommend reading the whole article).

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement that the president has to have been convicted of or indicted for any crime.

But wait, you ask what about high crimes and misdemeanors?

The essay is all about the meaning of that phrase.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
...
James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

[note: here it goes into all the various words that were considered and parsed, before arriving at the final version.]
...
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as 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. 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.

When it was adopted, this was how it was explained to the states for ratification.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

There’s a lot more... interesting explanation for anyone not well versed who wants to understand the process.

Ultimately, the takeaways are:

It’s not about whether or not trump committed any crimes or gets indicted.

The Mueller investigation is not necessary for or even relevant to impeachment. (Dems saying wait for mueller are dodging, and signaling they won’t impeach)

Trump’s general incompetence and his abuse of the public trust are valid grounds to impeach him.

Other presidents, probably all of them, could also have been impeached on these grounds. Most were not. That doesn’t mean trump gets a pass, imo. And if he did get impeached and the republican-controlled senate voted to remove him, his problematic behavior would have to extreme, even beyond what we’ve seen so far.

Most members of Congress could be impeached on the same grounds. That won’t happen either.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:27pm

Again, I’m no expert

I’m learning. Glad you found it helpful. I do think it’s interesting.

So, as far as I understand it, no. That’s not correct.

The House can impeach, and senate can vote to “convict” or not, on whatever “high crimes and misdemeanors” the House impeaches for.

They can vote to remove the president (or other government officials) whether or not criminal offenses are involved, if they agree that his (or her) behavior warrants removal.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 7:08pm

So the Senate is forced to vote

...regardless of what kind of petulance the House comes up with to recommend impeachment. I wasn't paying attention then, but they must have voted after Clinton was impeached — voted to ignore the whole thing.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 7:42pm

The senate vote on Clinton impeachment

From a news report at the time:

The Senate acquitted President Bill Clinton Friday of both articles of impeachment. The perjury charge was defeated with 55 "not guilty" votes and 45 "guilty" votes. On the obstruction-of-justice article, the chamber was evenly split, 50-50.

It actually was a close vote, especially on the obstruction charge. (I didn’t know this either; just looked it up.)

[Edit to add]: since it requires 2/3 of the senate to convict and remove from office, this vote was not close in the sense of coming close to succeeding. It didn’t.]

Yes, I believe if the house impeaches, the senate does have to vote. But they can certainly vote against, if senators think the house is being petty. Or, of course, based on team loyalty.

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 7:39pm

Thanks for looking it up.

You're the best.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 7:43pm

LOL

Thanks Pluto. I’ll go ahead and accept that as a compliment.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:25am

That's because the obstruction charge

was the only thing he was ultimately charged with that was a crime.

However immoral it is, having sex with someone of age who (at the time) claimed she was a consenting party, even someone who works for you in an extremely subordinate position, is not illegal. Immoral, unseemly, and ridiculous, yes.

Further, I'm guessing that Bill probably knows/knew the sexual pecadilloes of a lot of people in Congress, which would make them inclined not to push the matter to an actual removal from office. That's just a guess, though.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:21am

Well, of course they won't.

Imagine for a second what would happen if they successfully impeached Trump.

They couldn't really attack Pence or the Republicans in Congress, because they've spent the last two years assuring all of us that Pence would be okay, no really, and that the Republicans in Congress, at least the traditional Bush variety, are our new best buddies in the fight against Trump.

That leaves the Democrats with whom to oppose, exactly? Bernie Sanders?

#4.1.2.4.1

and it turns out, it seems that Rashida Tlaib is entirely correct in her op ed. I’ll get to that below, but one thing, from what I’ve read and learned so far, is that the democrats have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of impeaching trump.

And we can know this because, very simply, they are hiding behind the mueller investigation, awaiting his report, blah blah — as if it has any relevance. Which, as this feisty new congresswoman writes in her op ed, it does not. And, they know it won’t lead to any criminal charges against trump. So, this then lets them off the hook from taking responsibility and moving forward with impeachment. Pelosi and other top democrats have signaled it won’t happen. Pinning it all on mueller is a total smoke screen.

Rashida Tlaib is absolutely going off script, by pushing the issue and saying openly, the Dems are dodging, specifically because they want to run against trump.

We are also now hearing the dangerous claim that initiating impeachment proceedings against this president is politically unwise and that, instead, the focus should now shift to holding the president accountable via the 2020 election. Such a claim places partisan gamesmanship over our country and our most vulnerable at this perilous moment in our nation’s history. Members of Congress have a sworn duty to preserve our Constitution. Leaving a lawless president in office for political points would be abandoning that duty.

And clearly it would not lead to his removal from office without 2/3 of the senate voting to do so. There is nowhere near enough senators willing to do that. Unless, perhaps, he follows through with keeping the government shut down going for ever. That might be a bridge too far, even for them. But even that is questionable.

So, first key point: despite the fact that her argument is sound regarding the grounds for the House to impeach him, it is not going to happen. She’s going rogue.

Second thing I want to bring up is the confusion about what actually are the legal and constitutional grounds for impeachment. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer or expert, so I went looking for information. And I found this very good plain English explanation, here.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors

It’s long (I’m still reading it) but by half way through it’s obvious that this new congresswoman knows what she is talking about. Some key quotes (I recommend reading the whole article).

The impeachment process is political in nature, not criminal. Congress has no power to impose criminal penalties on impeached officials. But criminal courts may try and punish officials if they have committed crimes.

The Constitution sets specific grounds for impeachment. They are “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” To be impeached and removed from office, the House and Senate must find that the official committed one of these acts.

Impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. There is no requirement that the president has to have been convicted of or indicted for any crime.

But wait, you ask what about high crimes and misdemeanors?

The essay is all about the meaning of that phrase.

What are “high crimes and misdemeanors”? On first hearing this phrase, many people probably think that it is just an 18th century way of saying “felonies and misdemeanors.” Felonies are major crimes and misdemeanors are lesser crimes. If this interpretation were correct, “high crimes and misdemeanors” would simply mean any crime. But this interpretation is mistaken.
...
James Madison of Virginia successfully argued that an election every four years did not provide enough of a check on a president who was incapacitated or abusing the power of the office. He contended that “loss of capacity, or corruption . . . might be fatal to the republic” if the president could not be removed until the next election.

With the convention agreed on the necessity of impeachment, it next had to agree on the grounds. One committee proposed the grounds be “treason, bribery, and corruption.” Another committee was selected to deal with matters not yet decided. This committee deleted corruption and left “treason or bribery” as the grounds.

[note: here it goes into all the various words that were considered and parsed, before arriving at the final version.]
...
The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as 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. 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.

When it was adopted, this was how it was explained to the states for ratification.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

There’s a lot more... interesting explanation for anyone not well versed who wants to understand the process.

Ultimately, the takeaways are:

It’s not about whether or not trump committed any crimes or gets indicted.

The Mueller investigation is not necessary for or even relevant to impeachment. (Dems saying wait for mueller are dodging, and signaling they won’t impeach)

Trump’s general incompetence and his abuse of the public trust are valid grounds to impeach him.

Other presidents, probably all of them, could also have been impeached on these grounds. Most were not. That doesn’t mean trump gets a pass, imo. And if he did get impeached and the republican-controlled senate voted to remove him, his problematic behavior would have to extreme, even beyond what we’ve seen so far.

Most members of Congress could be impeached on the same grounds. That won’t happen either.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 2:44pm

I knew it was a quote

@snoopydawg and not the poster's own comment.

I am just saying I would like to see the evidence.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 3:48pm

About that

It was a snotty comment and I apologize for it. I was going to delete it, but I wrote it and now own it.

There's a reason I rarely comment in the am but still.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 3:59pm

Well, you were right and I appreciated your comment

Dfarrah did lash out at me personally, as if I’d written the comments of the author of the article I quoted. She wrote to me:

The people who support impeachment of Trump remind me of the people who wanted Clinton removed from office. You sound exactly the same as they did ...

Her claiming now she didn’t say that to me is gaslighting bs.

I’ve asked her before to stop doing that, and keep to the points of discussion instead of making personal remarks. But she won’t or can’t do that.

She lashes out at any criticism of trump, but seems to have a real problem with me in particular for being critical of him.

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:20pm

What about those that wanted Clinton, Bush, Obama and

@dfarrah now Trump all impeached? What do we sound like? We should get some kind of bonus for consistency or something shouldn't we?

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:31am

Yes, the same as those of us who

Objected to the police state and its atrocities, including torture and ceaseless war, under all those Presidents just the same.

Although I will say, I wasn't in favor of Clinton being impeached for getting a blow job in the Oval Office. Ken Starr is either the best coverup man in the business or the worst investigator ever. Started off telling us there were bodies buried and ended up with a distasteful, immoral, but consensual affair which really provided little basis for removal of a president.

And yes, I know she now says that the #MeToo movement has convinced her she wasn't actually consenting, but she did not say that at the time--quite the opposite--leaving investigators no room, really, for calling it a rape or even sexual harassment.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:27pm

All of those charges are easily defended

They look petty and marginal.

Trump committed a war crime in April 2017. A serious fucking war crime.

But the people talking about impeachment are too corrupt and morally grotesque to work with real laws and grave crimes against humanity. For that reason alone, I reject any lesser charges as sabotage and corruption.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CS in AZ on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 5:35pm

Do you have any evidence against Rashida Tlaib?

You say:

But the people talking about impeachment are too corrupt and morally grotesque to work with real laws and grave crimes against humanity.

I know nothing about her. Just heard of her for the first time yesterday.

What has she done that makes her “too corrupt and morally grotesque” to call for impeachment?

Stipulated: she is a democrat.

Is there anything else, anything specific against her?

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 6:53pm

I am talking about "people" not a "person"

In this case, I am talking about the people in Congress that act together to impeach a president. Together, the "people" who make up the Democratic Congress are morally unfit if their object is to pursue impeachment without basing it on the President's most egregious war crime against a sovereign nation and its people who did not threaten the United States in any way.

Most importantly, this would define our moral standards in America and in the world.

The rest of it is complete nonsense, as Americans will soon find out. They won't realize, however, that this nonsense is a deliberate distraction to cover up more serious crimes of sabotage and treason against them and their democracy.

There is an outstanding threat against them. They are currently hiding their crimes behind documents that are classified. They picked the one enemy who can declassify them. I certainly hope he does.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 10:32am

Here's to ya, Pluto.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/03/politics/impeachment-house-democrats-brad...

via GIPHY

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 6:06pm

THe articles have already been

@CS in AZ reintroduced.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Centaurea on Mon, 01/07/2019 - 12:43am

H.Res. 13

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/13

According to that CNN report, here's what Rep. Brad Sherman said, explaining why he filed the resolution:

Sherman told CNN Thursday that his goal is to force the conversation on impeachment when special counsel Robert Mueller's report comes out, saying he is simply doing the same thing he did in 2017 to push the discussion, accusing Trump of obstructing justice.

"I didn't do this as some political move, I did it in July of 2017, about as far away from an election as a House member ever gets," Sherman said. "Now I'm making sure not to take a step backward. We had to either take a step backward or not take a step backward."

(Emphasis supplied by me.)

Rep. Sherman introduced a similar impeachment resolution in the summer of 2017, during the 115th Congress.

As in 2017, he seems to be counting on Mueller's report to include impeachable offenses.

To note, Sherman's resolution is designated H. Res. 13 in the 116th Congress, and it can be tracked here:

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi

"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:31am

I thought it was completely

@divineorder disgusting.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:25pm

Trump has done what Obama was never able to do...

His blatant dealings and the blowhard way in which he administers those dealings have exposed what every President before him has tried to hide: Furthering the interests of the corporations running our deeply corrupt government.

It'll be a tough learning curve for those in the "McResistance", but after Trump's term ends, all bets are off on how many of them are going to be able to go back to the way they were.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 12:05pm

I think they're counting on being able to

@Anja Geitz

continue the threat of Trump, or "Trumpism," which is apparently now a thing, basically forever.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:29pm

Hearings on what?

That he's in bed with business? Did you happen to see Obama's cabinet? Didn't someone at Chase or whatever pretty much dictate the cabinet to him? None of what you've listed is unusual in any way whatsoever and I don't see how you'd make any sort of impeachment argument without pretty much getting everyone to agree that systemic corruption is real and systemic.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:44pm

Nah, this is obviously geometrically worsee

@SnappleBC of the same old same old. Nader and Reich have made strong cases But right , its better if no one rocks the boat I guess.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by divineorder on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 8:55pm

...

@divineorder
...https://www.democracynow.org/2018/12/17/ralph_nader_on_single_payer_climate

.... “ RALPH NADER: Well, impeachment is going to await the report of the Mueller investigation. If he comes out with documentation in terms of high crimes and misdemeanor potential, the House of Representatives has a constitutional obligation to initiate impeachment hearings. I mean, it’s just basically investigating the high crimes and misdemeanors of President Trump and other high officials.

We shouldn’t make a big deal out of it. I mean, our Founding Fathers let presidents, between elections, be unaccountable except for one measure, and that is the impeachment function. And basically, they said, “Look, we’re going to let Congress fire a high government official if they impeach in the House and convict in the Senate.” There’s a good book on impeachment that educates people, that has come out recently, and there are other information sources.”

I mean, people have got to stop thinking that impeachment is like the ultimate neutron bomb or something. It should be viewed as a normal way where the smallest but most powerful, under the Constitution, branch of government, the only really way they can have to hold the executive branch accountable, person by person, official by official. So, Congressman Jerry Nadler, who’s heading the House Judiciary Committee, has got to look at his constitutional duties here.

—

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:37pm

I'd like to see it d.o.

@divineorder I mean, we all have to live life to it's fullest and for me, watching Trump do the Nixon walk would be pretty cool.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:45am

The reason

@divineorder it is considered a bomb is because of the potential use for political purposes. The impeachment clause is meant to prevent removal from office for political purposes.

Further, if the US goes this route, it might be desirable that whatever standards you whip up should be consistently applied.

But due process and consistent application don't appear to be notions entertained by most people.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:48am

And you are really taking a lot of license

@divineorder with what Nader said.

RALPH NADER: Well, impeachment is going to await the report of the Mueller investigation. If he comes out with documentation in terms of high crimes and misdemeanor potential

Nader said if.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by pindar's revenge on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 8:20pm

Tactically,

@divineorder
Tactically,
TheRump is the problem facing us. We need to pressure him on all fronts. So what if impeachment doesn't pass the Senate or even the House donocracy? Keep the pressure up, and force the ownercrats to show their hand. I'd also like to see him get criminally charged with some or all his financial shenanigans, briberies (aka emoluments), frauds, and money launderings. NY, DC, and MD are pursuing criminal cases against him, where he can't pardon witnesses. By all means, charge him with war crimes and the genocide of Yemen. Prosecute all the crooks he appointed, or drive them out. Like Big Al says, watch him do the Nixon walk. In any case, he needs to be rendered powerless, in office or out.

So Pence? Keep fighting. Who says to stop with TheRump? Keep the power disorganized and defensive. Keep working on raising consciousness. But don't forget the bigger picture.

Strategically, we need to organize long-term against the owners. That won't end this year, or 2020, or within my lifetime. Don't forget that shortly after the Nixon walk we had Reagan.

And I'll tell you the truth, I consider the current fixation on HER and BO to be the distraction . They are now in the category of the Kochs, ALEC, Exxon, plutocracy: the problems to be dealt with strategically, tactically if they emerge to the fore again, like if HER tries to run. The distractions of identity politics make it harder to see the class issue. But the real problem is not individuals, it's the owner class.

Talking about the impeachability of past characters is like that saying about how generals always fight the _last_ war. Using trench tactics against Stukas and Panzers. Face it: the executive who gets put in charge of DOD, CIA, NSA, DHS is gonna be a villain or get Kennedy'd, and we're not going to change that soon. We must tactically oppose the current villain, and come up with a strategy for dealing with the broader problem.

Or watch tv, maybe endless loops of Addams Family.

I probably feel freer to say this because I never wrestled with the fools on Kos, so this gives me a different perspective. But I'm wrong often enough to listen.

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:35am

It is completely

@divineorder and utterly political.

Trump's opposition has been talking impeachment since day one. Before he had any time to even do anything as president.

Selecting cabinet members whose policies aren't the same as yours is not an impeachable offense.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:37am

Further,

@divineorder Congress may impeach him - just like they did Clinton.

However, it is unlikely that he will be removed from office.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 10:40am

Rock the boat?

With impeachment? I'm not in the camp of "impeach Trump at all costs". That camp is way too near the anti Obama frenzy the Republicans had. And no, I don't think it's way worse at all. I think it's about the same just more obvious. Sure, I want to fix systemic corruption and regain control of our government. But the ends do not justify the means. More to the point, the means have implications that continue beyond Trump. I do not wish to make it even easier to impeach a sitting President for purely political reasons. And if they impeach Trump on some sort of corruption charge that's what it'll certainly be. I'll know differently if a ton of senators and congressman also get taken down.

—

Submitted by dfarrah on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 6:10pm

Yeah, we

@SnappleBC @SnappleBC need to go after numerous congress critters, the state lege's, and city people too, if what Trump has done is going to result in removal from office.

For way too long, people have elected politicians based on their opinions and personal feelings rather than facts. For example, we've been perfectly happy to elect war criminals for decades. And now we want to impeach the only president who argues for reducing foreign engagements? That notion hadn't even been discussed broadly before Trump talked about it (just like Bernie managed to shift the conversation about other topics).

—

dfarrah

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:00pm

Worse?

In what measurable way is Trump's administration of industry insiders "worse" than Obama's?

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by doh1304 on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:01pm

It was Citi

@mhagle @SnappleBC
Obama was right up front laughing at us, and we didn't even notice.

—

On to Biden since 1973

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 9:50pm

People are noticing, now.

@doh1304 . One of the big reasons I didn't vote for Hillary. Consciously or not, Trump is pulling back the curtain.

Maybe it's stuck to his shoe.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 12:06pm

Now, now.

@SnappleBC

Let's not have any "moral equivalents." You know how the Reagan Administration frowned on them.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:25am

For those in a big picture mood

Dave Haggith at the Great Recession Blog looks at Trump with a somewhat conservative view, but takes into account the larger forces that are moving in the backgroud. Essentially, both parties are in the same boat moving in the same direction. But not the Elites/the globalists/the Establishment. And Donald Trump moves to his own drummer. This is a comment Haggith wrote in response to Brandon Smith's essay, Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda, which I thought was quite insightful:

It has been clear to me since Trump's campaign that he will become the establishment's scapegoat (and their puppet to the extent that they can lead him by his ego). I don't think, however, Trump is in on that. Trump is just being what he has been his entire life. He has a huge track record by which he can easily be judged. At every juncture in his life, Trump has done solely what is expedient and best for Donald Trump. His is not by any means a life of service to the cause of liberty. It is a life of service to the enrichment of Donald Trump.

Never once in his life has he appeared to do anything that is best for someone else that is not to his own betterment primarily. His whole life can be summarized as MTGA -- Make Trump Great Again. Whenever his enterprises have crashed (and some have crashed spectacularly) he has loaded all of his personal debt into the crashed enterprise and has let his backers take the financial fall. He's never cared that his string of corporate bankruptcies have destroyed other people Not his problem. Theirs for trusting him and doing business with him. They should have known better, as far as he is concerned.

I don't believe Trump is a co-conspirator. Trump is someone who is easily led by his own ego. As a narcissistic sociopath, he can be easily swayed into anything that will make him look great. As Brandon points out, his past relationships are with banksters, and it is banksters he has put in control. It is EASY for them to praise his ego and pander to it in order to get him to believe in their answers (since he has no solid answers based on principle in his head anyway). He is not a man of principle. Never has been. There isn't a shred of evidence of principle anywhere in his life. He's cheated on every wife again and again and again. He doesn't care in the least. With Bill Clinton, conservatives would point this out routinely as a deep character flaw. With Trump they excuse it because they want to believe he is their champion. He has cheated people in business out of what he owes them again and again. He doesn't care in the least.

The desire of conservatives to have a Clint-Eastwood/Sylvestor Stalone hero is so great that they will make excuses for Trump's blatant character flaws (which they would NEVER excuse in their competitors like Clinton or Obama) just to maintain their heroic hopes they have vested in him and to protect their own egos for having chosen him. (God forbid any of us admit we were duped into choosing the wrong champion.)

To protect their own hopes or, in some cases no doubt, to protect their own egos against feeling they made a bad choice, his supporters engage in 4-D rationalizations.... It is just people acting exactly as people do whenever they rationalize anything they want to believe in. They look for a ready explanation that makes sense of things.

In that light, what do you do with Donald Trump when it is completely and undeniably obvious that he has put the establishment in charge of every major department of his government? You say, "Ahh, he's acting as a double agent. He's really on our side, but he is trying to look to the establishment as if he is on their side so that he can hold his enemies close. Then he will spring his trap on them and take them all under." That would be the most obvious explanation, if not the only explanation that allows you to continue to see him as being the person you voted for. So, it's not a propaganda campaign. It's just every conservative who is writing about Trump having to find an explanation as to why his government looks totally sold out to the establishment, given what an establishment bunch of swamp creatures he's placed at the top. What other rationalization can they find?

It should be clear by now that there is no evidence that Trump has ever sprung a trap on any of them. I'm not saying he hasn't attacked them. He attacks the establishment media all the time. He has not, however, sprung some ingenious trap on the banksters and military-industrial complex that has slowed their agenda at all. They have, if anything, gained more power. They are doing EXACTLY as THEY want to do. They are merely working with someone they have no choice but to work with in order to try to keep this loose cannon in check, and they recognized early on that they could make easy chump use out of him because his ego is his great Achilles heal. They can put a bit in his ego and steer him like a mule.

....

So, either way, Donald Trump is the easiest scapegoat they could ever hope for. He's erratic because he is not governed by principles bigger than himself. He flips and flops all the time on what he says he will do. That means, he gives the financial establishment abundant moves to nowhere that they can blame for the crash that is now unfolding. They can say it is his tariffs, which they hate but can readily make use of to blame. They can say it is simply that his erratic nature spooks markets all the time because markets hate surprises. They can say it is his gambit to shut down government indefinitely in order to get his wall, causing panic in the markets.

It doesn't make a bit of difference that these are not the fundamental reasons the economy is going down. It's going down because their recovery program was never a path to a sustainable economy in the first place. All that matters is that all of these Trump moves make believable enough excuses to the millions who hate Trump! He's a self-made scapegoat. He's said and done things at every turn in ways that have made millions of people so mad at him that any ready excuse will do, and there are plenty of excuses that make just enough sense that people will find them on their own ... without any propaganda help by the Fed.

....

Trump WILL be made into the scapegoat for the Fed's self-destructive recovery plan, and his own actions set him up perfect for the role.

You WILL see that happen. I just don't think Trump is in on the plan! That's why some of things he does, like blaming the Fed for the failure of the economy, seem like they don't fit the script. It's because they don't. That's not a clever double-trick. It's just the way things work when you set someone up to be an unwitting fall guy. He fights back. Fall guys don't just cooperate at every turn, but the financial establishment knows they have all they need to work with. They can deal with those times he launches a successful attack against them. He doesn't even fully know what he's attacking.

So impeaching? It not really up to Congress. It's up to the elites who own Congress.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 10:29pm

Excellent insight on Donald Trump

They can put a bit in his ego and steer him like a mule.

This is exactly what is happening with him in office. There are no more rules to constrain them and they are taking advantage of it. They have always been corrupt, but with no sheriff in town they are fulfilling their wildest dreams. This is why the republicans won't reign him in. They are getting to pass their dream legislation that they have longed to do. I doubt that even Obama or Hillary would have signed the tax bill. Not that big of one.

Dave Haggith at the Great Recession Blog looks at Trump with a somewhat conservative view, but takes into account the larger forces that are moving in the backgroud. Essentially, both parties are in the same boat moving in the same direction. But not the Elites/the globalists/the Establishment. And Donald Trump moves to his own drummer. This is a comment Haggith wrote in response to Brandon Smith's essay, Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda, which I thought was quite insightful: It has been clear to me since Trump's campaign that he will become the establishment's scapegoat (and their puppet to the extent that they can lead him by his ego). I don't think, however, Trump is in on that. Trump is just being what he has been his entire life. He has a huge track record by which he can easily be judged. At every juncture in his life, Trump has done solely what is expedient and best for Donald Trump. His is not by any means a life of service to the cause of liberty. It is a life of service to the enrichment of Donald Trump. Never once in his life has he appeared to do anything that is best for someone else that is not to his own betterment primarily. His whole life can be summarized as MTGA -- Make Trump Great Again. Whenever his enterprises have crashed (and some have crashed spectacularly) he has loaded all of his personal debt into the crashed enterprise and has let his backers take the financial fall. He's never cared that his string of corporate bankruptcies have destroyed other people Not his problem. Theirs for trusting him and doing business with him. They should have known better, as far as he is concerned. I don't believe Trump is a co-conspirator. Trump is someone who is easily led by his own ego. As a narcissistic sociopath, he can be easily swayed into anything that will make him look great. As Brandon points out, his past relationships are with banksters, and it is banksters he has put in control. It is EASY for them to praise his ego and pander to it in order to get him to believe in their answers (since he has no solid answers based on principle in his head anyway). He is not a man of principle. Never has been. There isn't a shred of evidence of principle anywhere in his life. He's cheated on every wife again and again and again. He doesn't care in the least. With Bill Clinton, conservatives would point this out routinely as a deep character flaw. With Trump they excuse it because they want to believe he is their champion. He has cheated people in business out of what he owes them again and again. He doesn't care in the least. The desire of conservatives to have a Clint-Eastwood/Sylvestor Stalone hero is so great that they will make excuses for Trump's blatant character flaws (which they would NEVER excuse in their competitors like Clinton or Obama) just to maintain their heroic hopes they have vested in him and to protect their own egos for having chosen him. (God forbid any of us admit we were duped into choosing the wrong champion.) To protect their own hopes or, in some cases no doubt, to protect their own egos against feeling they made a bad choice, his supporters engage in 4-D rationalizations.... It is just people acting exactly as people do whenever they rationalize anything they want to believe in. They look for a ready explanation that makes sense of things. In that light, what do you do with Donald Trump when it is completely and undeniably obvious that he has put the establishment in charge of every major department of his government? You say, "Ahh, he's acting as a double agent. He's really on our side, but he is trying to look to the establishment as if he is on their side so that he can hold his enemies close. Then he will spring his trap on them and take them all under." That would be the most obvious explanation, if not the only explanation that allows you to continue to see him as being the person you voted for. So, it's not a propaganda campaign. It's just every conservative who is writing about Trump having to find an explanation as to why his government looks totally sold out to the establishment, given what an establishment bunch of swamp creatures he's placed at the top. What other rationalization can they find? It should be clear by now that there is no evidence that Trump has ever sprung a trap on any of them. I'm not saying he hasn't attacked them. He attacks the establishment media all the time. He has not, however, sprung some ingenious trap on the banksters and military-industrial complex that has slowed their agenda at all. They have, if anything, gained more power. They are doing EXACTLY as THEY want to do. They are merely working with someone they have no choice but to work with in order to try to keep this loose cannon in check, and they recognized early on that they could make easy chump use out of him because his ego is his great Achilles heal. They can put a bit in his ego and steer him like a mule. .... So, either way, Donald Trump is the easiest scapegoat they could ever hope for. He's erratic because he is not governed by principles bigger than himself. He flips and flops all the time on what he says he will do. That means, he gives the financial establishment abundant moves to nowhere that they can blame for the crash that is now unfolding. They can say it is his tariffs, which they hate but can readily make use of to blame. They can say it is simply that his erratic nature spooks markets all the time because markets hate surprises. They can say it is his gambit to shut down government indefinitely in order to get his wall, causing panic in the markets. It doesn't make a bit of difference that these are not the fundamental reasons the economy is going down. It's going down because their recovery program was never a path to a sustainable economy in the first place. All that matters is that all of these Trump moves make believable enough excuses to the millions who hate Trump! He's a self-made scapegoat. He's said and done things at every turn in ways that have made millions of people so mad at him that any ready excuse will do, and there are plenty of excuses that make just enough sense that people will find them on their own ... without any propaganda help by the Fed. .... Trump WILL be made into the scapegoat for the Fed's self-destructive recovery plan, and his own actions set him up perfect for the role. You WILL see that happen. I just don't think Trump is in on the plan! That's why some of things he does, like blaming the Fed for the failure of the economy, seem like they don't fit the script. It's because they don't. That's not a clever double-trick. It's just the way things work when you set someone up to be an unwitting fall guy. He fights back. Fall guys don't just cooperate at every turn, but the financial establishment knows they have all they need to work with. They can deal with those times he launches a successful attack against them. He doesn't even fully know what he's attacking. So impeaching? It not really up to Congress. It's up to the elites who own Congress.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by pindar's revenge on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 11:43pm

That tax bill

@snoopydawg @snoopydawg @snoopydawg

I thought he was disposable after they got that. Now they're running with him. And who's yanking on his bit? Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity? That was a hard 180 two weeks ago.

edit: or the guys on whateverchan who call him God-Emperor.

Submitted by The Voice In th... on Sat, 01/05/2019 - 11:12pm

Trump as wannabee?

@Pluto's Republic
Yeah. I can see it.

Dave Haggith at the Great Recession Blog looks at Trump with a somewhat conservative view, but takes into account the larger forces that are moving in the backgroud. Essentially, both parties are in the same boat moving in the same direction. But not the Elites/the globalists/the Establishment. And Donald Trump moves to his own drummer. This is a comment Haggith wrote in response to Brandon Smith's essay, Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda, which I thought was quite insightful: It has been clear to me since Trump's campaign that he will become the establishment's scapegoat (and their puppet to the extent that they can lead him by his ego). I don't think, however, Trump is in on that. Trump is just being what he has been his entire life. He has a huge track record by which he can easily be judged. At every juncture in his life, Trump has done solely what is expedient and best for Donald Trump. His is not by any means a life of service to the cause of liberty. It is a life of service to the enrichment of Donald Trump. Never once in his life has he appeared to do anything that is best for someone else that is not to his own betterment primarily. His whole life can be summarized as MTGA -- Make Trump Great Again. Whenever his enterprises have crashed (and some have crashed spectacularly) he has loaded all of his personal debt into the crashed enterprise and has let his backers take the financial fall. He's never cared that his string of corporate bankruptcies have destroyed other people Not his problem. Theirs for trusting him and doing business with him. They should have known better, as far as he is concerned. I don't believe Trump is a co-conspirator. Trump is someone who is easily led by his own ego. As a narcissistic sociopath, he can be easily swayed into anything that will make him look great. As Brandon points out, his past relationships are with banksters, and it is banksters he has put in control. It is EASY for them to praise his ego and pander to it in order to get him to believe in their answers (since he has no solid answers based on principle in his head anyway). He is not a man of principle. Never has been. There isn't a shred of evidence of principle anywhere in his life. He's cheated on every wife again and again and again. He doesn't care in the least. With Bill Clinton, conservatives would point this out routinely as a deep character flaw. With Trump they excuse it because they want to believe he is their champion. He has cheated people in business out of what he owes them again and again. He doesn't care in the least. The desire of conservatives to have a Clint-Eastwood/Sylvestor Stalone hero is so great that they will make excuses for Trump's blatant character flaws (which they would NEVER excuse in their competitors like Clinton or Obama) just to maintain their heroic hopes they have vested in him and to protect their own egos for having chosen him. (God forbid any of us admit we were duped into choosing the wrong champion.) To protect their own hopes or, in some cases no doubt, to protect their own egos against feeling they made a bad choice, his supporters engage in 4-D rationalizations.... It is just people acting exactly as people do whenever they rationalize anything they want to believe in. They look for a ready explanation that makes sense of things. In that light, what do you do with Donald Trump when it is completely and undeniably obvious that he has put the establishment in charge of every major department of his government? You say, "Ahh, he's acting as a double agent. He's really on our side, but he is trying to look to the establishment as if he is on their side so that he can hold his enemies close. Then he will spring his trap on them and take them all under." That would be the most obvious explanation, if not the only explanation that allows you to continue to see him as being the person you voted for. So, it's not a propaganda campaign. It's just every conservative who is writing about Trump having to find an explanation as to why his government looks totally sold out to the establishment, given what an establishment bunch of swamp creatures he's placed at the top. What other rationalization can they find? It should be clear by now that there is no evidence that Trump has ever sprung a trap on any of them. I'm not saying he hasn't attacked them. He attacks the establishment media all the time. He has not, however, sprung some ingenious trap on the banksters and military-industrial complex that has slowed their agenda at all. They have, if anything, gained more power. They are doing EXACTLY as THEY want to do. They are merely working with someone they have no choice but to work with in order to try to keep this loose cannon in check, and they recognized early on that they could make easy chump use out of him because his ego is his great Achilles heal. They can put a bit in his ego and steer him like a mule. .... So, either way, Donald Trump is the easiest scapegoat they could ever hope for. He's erratic because he is not governed by principles bigger than himself. He flips and flops all the time on what he says he will do. That means, he gives the financial establishment abundant moves to nowhere that they can blame for the crash that is now unfolding. They can say it is his tariffs, which they hate but can readily make use of to blame. They can say it is simply that his erratic nature spooks markets all the time because markets hate surprises. They can say it is his gambit to shut down government indefinitely in order to get his wall, causing panic in the markets. It doesn't make a bit of difference that these are not the fundamental reasons the economy is going down. It's going down because their recovery program was never a path to a sustainable economy in the first place. All that matters is that all of these Trump moves make believable enough excuses to the millions who hate Trump! He's a self-made scapegoat. He's said and done things at every turn in ways that have made millions of people so mad at him that any ready excuse will do, and there are plenty of excuses that make just enough sense that people will find them on their own ... without any propaganda help by the Fed. .... Trump WILL be made into the scapegoat for the Fed's self-destructive recovery plan, and his own actions set him up perfect for the role. You WILL see that happen. I just don't think Trump is in on the plan! That's why some of things he does, like blaming the Fed for the failure of the economy, seem like they don't fit the script. It's because they don't. That's not a clever double-trick. It's just the way things work when you set someone up to be an unwitting fall guy. He fights back. Fall guys don't just cooperate at every turn, but the financial establishment knows they have all they need to work with. They can deal with those times he launches a successful attack against them. He doesn't even fully know what he's attacking. So impeaching? It not really up to Congress. It's up to the elites who own Congress.

—

I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 12:11pm

There's only a couple of things that don't fit into this

picture, for me:

1)drawing down in Syria

2)his tariffs

I'm assuming the Syria drawdown is not a complete lie because of the rapid exodus of Mad Dog Mattis.

In those two ways, I'm not sure how the establishment is getting what they want. But in every other way, of course they are (and that's a great analysis BTW). And as for Congress removing Trump, well, the elites are using him, politically, for the exact same thing the Democrats and Bush Republicans are using him for. (He is particularly useful to the Bushes, something that deserves more attention.) They will keep him around as long as possible, unless of course they want to light the fuse on the civil war they've been engineering for the last ten years or so.

Dave Haggith at the Great Recession Blog looks at Trump with a somewhat conservative view, but takes into account the larger forces that are moving in the backgroud. Essentially, both parties are in the same boat moving in the same direction. But not the Elites/the globalists/the Establishment. And Donald Trump moves to his own drummer. This is a comment Haggith wrote in response to Brandon Smith's essay, Trump Is A Pied Piper For The New World Order Agenda, which I thought was quite insightful: It has been clear to me since Trump's campaign that he will become the establishment's scapegoat (and their puppet to the extent that they can lead him by his ego). I don't think, however, Trump is in on that. Trump is just being what he has been his entire life. He has a huge track record by which he can easily be judged. At every juncture in his life, Trump has done solely what is expedient and best for Donald Trump. His is not by any means a life of service to the cause of liberty. It is a life of service to the enrichment of Donald Trump. Never once in his life has he appeared to do anything that is best for someone else that is not to his own betterment primarily. His whole life can be summarized as MTGA -- Make Trump Great Again. Whenever his enterprises have crashed (and some have crashed spectacularly) he has loaded all of his personal debt into the crashed enterprise and has let his backers take the financial fall. He's never cared that his string of corporate bankruptcies have destroyed other people Not his problem. Theirs for trusting him and doing business with him. They should have known better, as far as he is concerned. I don't believe Trump is a co-conspirator. Trump is someone who is easily led by his own ego. As a narcissistic sociopath, he can be easily swayed into anything that will make him look great. As Brandon points out, his past relationships are with banksters, and it is banksters he has put in control. It is EASY for them to praise his ego and pander to it in order to get him to believe in their answers (since he has no solid answers based on principle in his head anyway). He is not a man of principle. Never has been. There isn't a shred of evidence of principle anywhere in his life. He's cheated on every wife again and again and again. He doesn't care in the least. With Bill Clinton, conservatives would point this out routinely as a deep character flaw. With Trump they excuse it because they want to believe he is their champion. He has cheated people in business out of what he owes them again and again. He doesn't care in the least. The desire of conservatives to have a Clint-Eastwood/Sylvestor Stalone hero is so great that they will make excuses for Trump's blatant character flaws (which they would NEVER excuse in their competitors like Clinton or Obama) just to maintain their heroic hopes they have vested in him and to protect their own egos for having chosen him. (God forbid any of us admit we were duped into choosing the wrong champion.) To protect their own hopes or, in some cases no doubt, to protect their own egos against feeling they made a bad choice, his supporters engage in 4-D rationalizations.... It is just people acting exactly as people do whenever they rationalize anything they want to believe in. They look for a ready explanation that makes sense of things. In that light, what do you do with Donald Trump when it is completely and undeniably obvious that he has put the establishment in charge of every major department of his government? You say, "Ahh, he's acting as a double agent. He's really on our side, but he is trying to look to the establishment as if he is on their side so that he can hold his enemies close. Then he will spring his trap on them and take them all under." That would be the most obvious explanation, if not the only explanation that allows you to continue to see him as being the person you voted for. So, it's not a propaganda campaign. It's just every conservative who is writing about Trump having to find an explanation as to why his government looks totally sold out to the establishment, given what an establishment bunch of swamp creatures he's placed at the top. What other rationalization can they find? It should be clear by now that there is no evidence that Trump has ever sprung a trap on any of them. I'm not saying he hasn't attacked them. He attacks the establishment media all the time. He has not, however, sprung some ingenious trap on the banksters and military-industrial complex that has slowed their agenda at all. They have, if anything, gained more power. They are doing EXACTLY as THEY want to do. They are merely working with someone they have no choice but to work with in order to try to keep this loose cannon in check, and they recognized early on that they could make easy chump use out of him because his ego is his great Achilles heal. They can put a bit in his ego and steer him like a mule. .... So, either way, Donald Trump is the easiest scapegoat they could ever hope for. He's erratic because he is not governed by principles bigger than himself. He flips and flops all the time on what he says he will do. That means, he gives the financial establishment abundant moves to nowhere that they can blame for the crash that is now unfolding. They can say it is his tariffs, which they hate but can readily make use of to blame. They can say it is simply that his erratic nature spooks markets all the time because markets hate surprises. They can say it is his gambit to shut down government indefinitely in order to get his wall, causing panic in the markets. It doesn't make a bit of difference that these are not the fundamental reasons the economy is going down. It's going down because their recovery program was never a path to a sustainable economy in the first place. All that matters is that all of these Trump moves make believable enough excuses to the millions who hate Trump! He's a self-made scapegoat. He's said and done things at every turn in ways that have made millions of people so mad at him that any ready excuse will do, and there are plenty of excuses that make just enough sense that people will find them on their own ... without any propaganda help by the Fed. .... Trump WILL be made into the scapegoat for the Fed's self-destructive recovery plan, and his own actions set him up perfect for the role. You WILL see that happen. I just don't think Trump is in on the plan! That's why some of things he does, like blaming the Fed for the failure of the economy, seem like they don't fit the script. It's because they don't. That's not a clever double-trick. It's just the way things work when you set someone up to be an unwitting fall guy. He fights back. Fall guys don't just cooperate at every turn, but the financial establishment knows they have all they need to work with. They can deal with those times he launches a successful attack against them. He doesn't even fully know what he's attacking. So impeaching? It not really up to Congress. It's up to the elites who own Congress.

—

"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha

"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:03pm

Here's my issue with impeachment, in general

and it is the very same issue I have with the Mueller investigation. Impeachment is another shiny object that will be used by the Dems to divert our attention away from the real problems facing the country, many of which can be laid at the feet of the Democrats themselves. Impeachment takes time and it will suck all the air out of anything else we should be focused upon.

If the Dems believe that impeaching Trump will solve the problems in the White House, they are very wrong. They will exchange Trump's blustery, in your face, shoot from the hip style for Pence's more outwardly decorous, but equally (or possibly far more) dangerous dominionism. Neither choice is a good one and neither one solves the real problems facing the people of the United States.

Impeaching Trump is not going to solve the problem. And voting is not going to change the real ills in the US either.

The French have the right idea. We could learn a lot from them.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:10pm

I think impeaching Trump will solve the problem of Trump.

@gulfgal98 And that is a problem. After that, ya, we would still have the big problems. But we wouldn't have a true mental case in the white house, relatively speaking. I totally understand about Pence, but the man in there now is absolutely unfit for office and has proven to be a danger to the planet. So what do we do with someone that is absolutely unfit for office and he has two years left?

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 12:50pm

I am unconvinced

That the Hairball's "mental" afflictions are measurably worse than either Obama or Clinton. More obvious, yes. But worse? Dunno. Anyone who has to do what they do in office are all sociopaths.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:04pm

I am. I've been studying what he's been saying,

@Anja Geitz how he says it and some of the things he apparently believes. Particularly the last couple weeks, like with what he said in Iraq in front of the troops. He actually doesn't really know what's going on. He's been off the charts the last few weeks. I was going to write up something about it listing examples, but it's a waste of my time to post it here. I do believe he's mentally imbalanced, whacked out, whatever you want to call it, and should be removed from office.
That of course doesn't excuse the sociopathy of the others, but to focus on the current incumbent, he's fucking crazy.
Actually, to say he shouldn't be removed from office to me is absurd. It's like saying a murderer should not be prosecuted because someone else will murder anyway. But I'm not talking about his war crimes, I'm talking about a person who is unfit to be president plain and simple.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:11pm

We could say the same thing about GWB

And his obvious cluelessness about the Middle East, which made listening to him talk terrifying as well. Hell, we shoulda put him in padded cell after he strutted around that air craft carrier in his fly boy jump suit.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by Big Al on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:16pm

All right, I give up.

@Anja Geitz Won't happen anyway so it's all just talk. Hell, maybe he'll get reelected so we can see how crazy he can really get.

Submitted by Anja Geitz on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 1:21pm

The way the Dems are shaming progressives

And intimidating everyone not to critique their Obama wanna be Beto O'Rourke, I suspect Trump will be re-elected.

—

There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 01/06/2019 - 2:58pm

I was thinking that too

@Anja Geitz

The Dems are already pushing HARD for a Trump win in 2020. I think there is a pretty good chance they get their way. After all, we all know they'd much rather have Trump than someone like Sanders or even Warren. Neither of those two holds a candle to the true evil of all evils, AOC.

The Dems are going to throw 3000 faux-liberals into the fray and muddy the waters enough that they can get away with whatever backroom crimes they choose to commit to ensure that a neolib gets the nomination. The only real question in my mind is whether they are right in betting that 4 years of Trump is enough to get ANYONE else elected.

—

Submitted by Cant Stop the M... on Tue, 01/08/2019 - 12:17pm

DHS controls our elections.