Trump Possible Impeachment

So, actually trying to be neutral here... not saying Trump should or shouldn't be impeached. That's not the issue. The issue is the threat.

I'm saying that Trump is risking a lot.

Maybe he doesn't understand impeachment (or does, and is counting on republican control) but if he truly is going to try and destroy the establishment and fight entrenched politicians in Washington, he's put a big target on his back.

Article II Section IV: "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a huge net for any potential opponents to use. "High crimes and misdemeanors" just means anything that is seen as degrading the office he holds.

People have been impeached for simple things like "drunkeness" or vague stuff like "abuse of power".

They could nail him on the emolument clause (if a single foreign diplomat stays in a property of his) or any conflict of interest (Comcast has him on the payroll, they end up in federal court all the time). He is protected from federal conflict of interest laws, but those are crafted to prevent potential conflicts... actual demonstrated conflicts are just tried as "corruption".

So, what's the point? I think both sides need to realize one thing. Trump has left himself wide open for an easy impeachment excuse, and the moment that the Republicans don't want him anymore (or the Dems get back in somehow) he could have articles written against him.

He's got a gun to his head if he makes big waves, and has given the establishment the power to make it look like he pulled the trigger.

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081
breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/12/10/arnold-schwarzenegger-defends-trumps-celebrity-apprentice-producer-credit/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Ok, I think I understand your key point:
Trump is vulnerable to impeachment because he is going to be making politically unpopular decisions on a regular basis?

under 50% politically unpopular. Who gives a flying fuck about leftists.

So Fast and Furious, Benghazi, Obamacare, providing material support for ISIS, using the IRS to target liberty groups, NSA spying on the WHOLE FUCKING WORLD, and over-reaching executive order after over-reaching executive order somehow... won't get a president impeached? I know I am missing a few...

And we are worried about Trump? If they want day of the commiekill then they can try.

Well, there are two parts to impeachment.

The first is doing something that is theoretically impeachable. Trump has that in spades.

The second is that you have to get enough congressmen and senators to go along with it. This is political (and what protects Trump for now).

Say he makes waves that piss off some older, established repubs. All they have to do is get together, talk to the democrats (who would all likely want to boot him) and they can reach those numbers. The second part is political, which is why some people get impeached through the house but acquitted by the Senate (depending on who controls what, and how they feel about it).

So yeah, because he has legitimate excuses to impeach, the only thing stopping his impeachment is politics.

If he makes politically unpopular decisions (and the republicans see him as hurting them, or just want Pence in) they could boot him in a month.

If he was squeaky clean, he'd be safer because it would be super obvious what the legislative branch was doing... and they'd shy away from looking that bad.

>if he truly is going to try and destroy the establishment and fight entrenched politicians in Washington

All of those things could have gotten Obama impeached if the political will had been there for Democrats. They just realized that none of those things were strictly unconstitutional/illegal, or directly traceable to the President (which is how Reagan got out of Iran-Contra).

It's all politics, but Trump is violating the constitution on day one. No one will call it out until they WANT to call it out. Nice little leverage for the Republicans to keep him in line.

*Democrats and Republicans. Sorry there. You need a two thirds. I dropped the rest of that sentence.

Could the republicans win next time if they did that? They won because people wanted Trump reforming them.

Fast and Furious violates the 2nd amendment.
IRS scandal violates the 1st amendment.
NSA spying violates the 4th and 1st amendment.
Obamacare is unconstititional - everyone by the fucking supreme court knew it.

You were saying? What the fuck has Trump done that is anywhere NEAR that?

Also "muh worry" is not going to work here.
Everyone knows Trump OWNS all three branches of government, and will soon own the supreme court for the next 30 years.
muh worry is not going to work here... shill

>The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" is a huge net for any potential opponents to use. "High crimes and misdemeanors" just means anything that is seen as degrading the office he holds.

Is there any actual proof of any activity of this kind?

>People have been impeached for simple things like "drunkeness" or vague stuff like "abuse of power".

Who? Which president? There have only been three impeachments. One being Bill Clinton and frankly if you are looking for evidence of corruption in a presidential candidate...Hillary and the Clinton foundation comes to mind. I realize that everyone is worried about the source of email leaks these days as opposed to the content of them, but I was just watching some clips of Bob Woodward comparing Hillary to Richard Nixon (one of the other 3 impeached presidents).

>They could nail him on the emolument clause (if a single foreign diplomat stays in a property of his) or any conflict of interest (Comcast has him on the payroll, they end up in federal court all the time). He is protected from federal conflict of interest laws, but those are crafted to prevent potential conflicts... actual demonstrated conflicts are just tried as "corruption".

Is there any proof of this?

>Trump has left himself wide open for an easy impeachment excuse, and the moment that the Republicans don't want him...

He has the majority. It's always possible. Some could throw him under the bus, however if it backfires, it's gonna come back onto them.

Bill Clinton was impeached but still served out his term. Impeachment does not mean removal from office. He still remains, to some, a beloved figure. If Mr. Trump keeps doing well and his supporters approve, I don't belive anyone would risk doing anything.

He's not even president yet and he's already done very well.

I just said that all of those things could have theoretically gotten him impeached. Seriously, read.

Except for Obamacare, because the Supreme Court decides what is constitutional, like it or not. But whatever, it'll be repealed in like, 3 months.

Trump will have violated Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 the moment a diplomat stays in his hotel. It's something personally tied to him as well.

You have to understand. The violation is the spark. The political situation is the gasoline. It matters much more for impeachment.

People have been impeached under the constitution (the Pres, VP, and federal civil officers all fall under the same regulations) for things as minor as DRUNKENESS.

Another for failing to provide financial records.

Seriously, the requirements are super vague, because "high crimes" only means that you did something that reflects poorly on the "high" office. There is no hard definition.

not worried. neither are the American people.
That's a great way to start a violent revolution though!

I'm less worried about revolution as I am with the continued Russophobic propaganda and censorship grabs at "fake news". Whether these things are true or not. It's dangerous and irresponsible.

All impeachments (including President, VP, and Civil officers) have the same constitutional requirements, and are in fact mentioned together:

> Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

While there have been only 3 presidents, there are other examples to look at.

Impeachment is basically a recommendation to remove, and forces the Senate to decide if they should be. It's basically charging with a crime, and the Senate is the judge.

Also
>Is there any proof of this?

Ineligibility clause of the Constitution:
>No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

>Emolument: a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.

If his companies (which he privately owns) receive any money from a foreign power, he violates the letter of the law.

But that's not the point, the point is that it just sets him up to be at risk. He will violate the constitution, but they won't pursue it until it benefits them.

>if one foreign diplomat stays in his property
>also bibi
Muh they're not diplomats. Good thing he sold all his hotels for marketing rights

Well, I'm no lawyer and this is where I leave you. I'm sure that Donald Trump of all people has proper attorneys and knows how to protect the interests of himself, his family, his companies, and most importantly the nation.

Whoops, my bad. Copied the other "emolument clause"

This is the relevant one from Article I, Section 9, Clause 8

>No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

You have to worry about it for 38 more days brother. 38 days.
I hear you tho. Sorry for calling you a shill. You seem ok.

You have to do something illegal to be impeached, ignore all the liberals screaming it's about to happen because it's just wishful thinking based on their feelings.

opps. I am toooo tired to be typing.
I didn't call you a shill, but I agree with you totally.
Cheers AND goodnight sir!

>Trump is violating the constitution on day one

Source: The Chocolate Starfish Journal

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
>No his isn't, source: my feels

It won't happen due to politics, but the moment he is sworn in he will have done something illegal under Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

Well, will "likely" have done so. It depends on if a diplomat/foreign officials is staying in one of his hotels at that very moment. Probably though.

And it's a slam dunk thing to impeach him on if they wanted to, as he's been warned about it and that part of the constitution is pretty much saying things like "you can't be president if you do this/are this"

I don't belive that was me but I'm sure everything will be okay. The majority America is kind of boring for the most part isn't it? We've never been invaded. I'd like not to be nuked. If anyone should be prosecuted it's the media in this country who have rilled people up and pushed an agenda that has caused damage to the unity of the country. George Soros for one, if it is true that he funded BLM, should be held responsible for the actions of riots carried out in the groups name.

I don't think he, anyone on this board, or Reddit believe he will really expect to be called "The God Emperor". If anything it's a nickname like "Ike". Then again, I saw a report of a college campus where a student demanded to be referred to as "Your Majesty". So, if that is Mr. Trump's preferred designation, you should respect that, least be disrespectful.

That may be better for he put even more jews everywhere

Not a problem user. Cheers and goodnight.

Trump isn't stupid enough to do something like that, nor are the people advising him

The title thing isn't what is going to nail him, it's the emolument part.

Basically, if he receives any pay from a foreign power, he has to report it to Congress and they have to consent to it. Each time/individually. So each time a foreign government or one the employees of a foreign government pays Trump for something (hotels, rent, etc.) he'd have to get Congressional approval.

This is an actual thing. Presidents have had to do this for things as minor as receiving a horse, and those were auctioned off and given to the Treasury.

We all know its going to happen. Reince Priebus hated Trump now he loves him? The GOP are just waiting for the right moment to backstab him.

Obama should have been impeached years ago. It just doesn't happen anymore.

Well, first off he would need to break the law in some way while in office. Nothing he has done or will do before inauguration can be used to impeach him. That's why if Clinton won, she wouldn't have been able to be prosecuted for the email thing.

>destroy the establishment
please. He is licking the ass of establishment with his nominations

Even if he steps down, benefits to descendants still count under legal definitions of benefits.

Like, if Obama was approached by the President of Uzbekibekistanstan and he gave Obama's daughters a sack of gold (but Obama nothing) it would still be a violation of this clause for obvious reasons.

Previous presidents have tried, but the only agreed upon way to avoid it is to use a blind trust, which Donald doesn't like... so his lawyers might be in a pickle.

As I said, im no lawyer, but I'm sure he has himself covered. Politically speaking, I don't think it would do anyone any good to destabilize the country by going down that road. It's been a rough go for everyone. Why drag it out further? It's time for healing.

36DD CHESS

Just one person from a foreign government has to pay rent/hotel fees. If a single such person is paying for a day in one of his hotels on his inauguration, he'd violate the constitution the moment he was sworn in.

isn't he getting paid to be the executive producer for celebraty apprentice?

that seems suspect to me...

Utter tripe. You don't have to approach Trump nor the CEOs of Trump Inc to get a reservation in one of his hotels, and there's no court in the land that would accept legally paying for a hotel room at a corporation owned by the children of the president as a bribe.

No

twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081

Didn't he sell the physical hotels? I thought he just markets the name? That's not the same as owning the establishment, is it?

>thinking politicians care about healing

It's not a matter of doing good for people user. It's all about when it benefits the establishment to dump him. They might wait a year, or two... or maybe three... so we'll be healed up enough in their eyes.

And Trump doesn't always have himself covered so well legally. He usually gets out of his dicier legal cases by settling.

Settling in this case would mean stepping down.

If his popularity in those people's states is high, then they won't risk it. Unless they are bought. They care about reelection too. If they wait up to three years, I strongly suspect that he won't be removed from office. Up until then, he can continue to do good work for the average American.

It isn't a bribe, it's an emolument.

It's much broader than a bribe, because the founders saw things that weren't "technically bribes" all the time in Europe at the time of the Constitutional founding.

The definition of an emolument is just "a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office". If any part of his company's income is from a foreign source, he's in violation.

Seriously, it's why other presidents used blind trusts.

He sold a lot of them, all the ones his Father left him... but he still owns physical buildings.

>his company's income
Which is why it won't be his company when he enters office.

Now, if there was a mention of his family being unable to earn any income, then he'd be in trouble. But he's not going to be working except as President, and he's not taking money for that either. He has his savings to fall back on.

>Family can't take money
Gee wizz better not have any kids ever and try to be President because I can be removed if a foreigner stays at my kids bed and breakfast.

>twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081

how about this?

"President-elect Trump will be paid an undisclosed fee per episode by MGM, which produces the top-rated program."

breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/12/10/arnold-schwarzenegger-defends-trumps-celebrity-apprentice-producer-credit/

He's still on the payroll for a lot of things (Comcast pays him, etc.) and pay to children is still considered in most legal circles, as it's where his inheritance would go anyway.

Like I said, it still counts as a bribe or gift if I give it to your wife/kids rather than you.

OP, why do you think Mike Pence is the VP?
He's there so that the democrats try and keep trump in power so mike pence doesn't take the seat.

It becomes more of an issue if you advertised that child's bed and breakfast to foreign diplomats as a nice place to stay (wink wink).

Which Trump did, when he advertised his Washington DC hotel as a nice place for diplomats to stay.

>“I don’t think that he is going to be cohosting with me, even though maybe it’d be fun to have him as a guest advisor or something like this if he has the time,” Schwarzenegger said. “I don’t know if he has time or not.”
Sounds like it's an "in-name-only" producer credit. Producers don't have to be involved with the show beyond its creation to be credited in every episode.

Children of the president are allowed to have jobs and be paid for it, that's not a bribe to their father. I'm starting to suspect you're a troll.

This is concern trolling bullshit. Trump is no longer a controlling factor in his businesses, all of it is signed away to his family. He is 'just' the President now.

And lets be real, every president since LBJ had JFK blasted has been dirty and complicit. Nobody is worried about this outcome; it really would result in a rightwing revolution.

He's getting executive produce credit, but that in itself is risky legally because that means he will be on the payroll of Comcast.

Who he will be in charge of regulating (and Comcast often is overseen by executive departments in anti-trust actions).

Also

>Children of the president are allowed to have jobs and be paid for it, that's not a bribe to their father. I'm starting to suspect you're a troll
Yeah, of course. The issue is when he advertises to foreign diplomats to stay at (what will be their) properties and has his children sit in on diplomatic meetings.

If they were just doing their own thing and got money for it, it wouldn't be an issue. The law is kinda funny like that, where context matters.

I hadn't even thought of that. No offense to Mr. Pence, but they'd be even more worried about him. If he was removed from office within a year or two.. No way...they couldn't take that kind of...shock.

He hasn't done that yet though, he said he'd reveal his plans on the 15th.

Also, if we are being real here... that's my whole point. Trump has to be complicit in what is going on in DC (or within margins) or they can easily give him the boot. He's got too much public legal dirt to be able to avoid it if they want him gone.

not happening.

just let him do his thing. wait 4 years and then vote.

It would result in a complete collapse of trust in the American system. I'm sure that would make some people happy, especially those who read things like Rules for Radicals.

And I'm saying if they give him the boot before he's even had a chance to do anything, the public will cry foul and riot for REAL, and the local cops won't do shit about it. And when the silent majority is angry enough to riot, they don't burn down their own businesses, they burn down the governor's mansion and seize city hall.

That'd make for some great television and I'm sure those who have been promoting such things all year, like CNN and MSNBC would get a boost in ratings.

It would result in a purge, and possibly escalate to a war externally during the power vacuum.

This

>Be pres
>Have kid
>Kid owns a deli
>Foreign diplomats eat at deli
>I am suddenly impeached

Exactly.

Which is why he'll stick around. And why they'll let him until he starts to challenge the establishment.

Either that or use a heart attack gun on him, he's the right age/weight/lifestyle for it to be passed off. Considering the CIA is getting chastised by him (and the CIA developed the gun...)

How much would the silent majority riot if a 70+ overweight man died of a heart attack early in his term?

If he is too big a threat and still popular, they go that route. If he isn't popular anymore, they impeach him.

you're putting a whole lot of effort into these shitposts and i just want you to know you're still a faggot

Or you know he just goes Literally Hitler on the 20th and none of this bullshit matters. Do it, I'm ready for that cash uniform and a chance to kill leftists.

Ratings? Dude, people would be out retaking the country, not watching CNN. Do you think Syrians or Ukranians sat at home and watched CNN during the height of shit hitting the fan?

Go back to /x/.

Yes, people would be surprised if a healthy DJT dropped dead. You're reaching.

That's not /x/.

At his age, weight, height... and even assuming no family history or additional conditions...

He has a +50% of having a heart attack in the next decade. Heart attack is a really common way to go, and can hit someone who is otherwise healthy. You can go calculate the odds on Mayo, they have a tool for that (because so many Americans die from it we have good odds).

The only people who'd be really surprised would be /x/ denizens.

*otherwise appearing healthy

Obviously you need some plaque formation/cause for ischemia, but even 20 year olds typically have initial plaque formations in their vessels.

I hope not. Last I checked the left isn't keen on owning firearms and some of the militia groups are way too gung ho for such a thing. The military would step in to restore order I'm sure.

I would. Hopefully they continue providing coverage. Their work is highly valued by everyone after all.

Do they have a heart attack gun? That's amazing! You know I picked up a link earlier to an article about Russia weaponizing an octopus. I'd rather we had the octopus weapon. Just my opinion.

Go be a cuck somewhere else.

We probably have better things now, the heart attack gun was declassified back in the 70s.

I'm sure they do, but do they have a weaponized octopus or giant squid of some kind? I'm sure the navy would appreciate it.

>They just realized that none of those things were strictly unconstitutional/illegal
It's illegal for the government to pay hostage ransom, which is what the Iran payments were.

Fast and the furious was a debacle too. Failure after failure. Kind of dissapointing to be honest.

> gifts, emoluments, offices or titles

Which one is he receiving?

So that fish restaurant Obamas kid works at it bribing him?

Not "strictly".

That's my point. The majority of impeachment is political, not legal. The legal stuff is easy, and very obvious for Trump because this will be a personal dealing, not a result of executive action.

With I think 2 (out of 19) exceptions, impeachments have all been for personal bias/misconduct... rather than executive action. Executive action is usually rule upon by the courts and either reversed or upheld.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors are ruled on by the Senate (after impeachment in the House).

Emoluments

If Obama had told people that it'd be great for diplomats to eat there, yeah. That'd be crossing the line.

Trump will be in violation of the Constitution and yes you could theoritically impeach him right away. All you would need to do is prove foreign government employees are staying at his hotels and he is technically profiting from it. Trump is acting like he is invulnerable and as long as the Republicans are in control of the government nothing will happen.

I just don't think he will be able to resist corruption. He will probably be our first president to get thrown out of office. It doesn't matter you're ideology, this is just based on his actions since the election.

Pretty sure Trump has a gigantic email cannon aimed at the heads of "the establishment".

Are they stupid enough to try and impeach?

Idk im sure he will say that but im not sure people will agree. If he did something illegal, people will be pissed.

He's working for someone?

If business dealings were illegal then why isn't he required to just surrender his businesses when he can't do anything related to them?