The Trump Presidency 13: The (James) Baker's Dozen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
There are legitimate complaints from taxpayers over trump's returns too.

For example his failure to divest himself of his assets. If he is benefitting from violations of the emoluments clause (by foreign governments using trump hotels over others with the goal of gaining trump's favor, something that may come outvin tax returns, depending on what forms are requested) then the owners of competing hotels have a legitimate complaint.



Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There's endless hay that could be made out of going into his holdings. The cases against the Trump Foundation and such are where they should be turning. I'm sure they'd find people with wealth who are threatened by Trump to grease the wheels (since those records go in a more SEC/FEC direction, sorry, it's realpolitik).

Plus, he haaaates being President. All that's going for him is how fat he's getting paid. If that starts getting seized/frozen/exposed he's going to lose what's left of his sanity.

It would be a poetic note, too. Sort of an Albatross.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't think they could do it without the news getting out. Even if a committee chairman requested the info, I'm pretty sure the ranking minority leader would be privy to it.There are simply way too many people in that loop to believe it wouldn't get leaked.
Click to expand...
Oh, it would get out. I'm just thinking, you don't have to hold a press conference. It looks better if it's leaked, which I'm sure it would be.

I'd be amused to see some psy-ops to throw Trump off-balance.
 
Minoosh said:
Oh, it would get out. I'm just thinking, you don't have to hold a press conference. It looks better if it's leaked, which I'm sure it would be.



I'd be amused to see some psy-ops to throw Trump off-balance.
Click to expand...
Plus senior staff of the committee (ostensibly nonpartisan). In fact I'd put money on that being the eventual source. Hill reporters have a lot longer to cultivate relationships with career staffers and paddle in the same direction. Member staff and the press tend to be a bit more guarded and suspicious towards each other.
 
Norman Alexander said:
So the "official ruling" is that there is no specific punishment associated with breaking a number of constitutional laws. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
No that is not ******* correct.

Did you miss this post?
A fair hearing about impeachment cannot take place as long as the GOP legislators don't care about the law, or justice. All they appear to care about is what they can get out of the Trump POTUS experience before 2020, and maybe after if they can suppress the facts long enough.
Click to expand...
 
Norman Alexander said:
So the "official ruling" is that there is no specific punishment associated with breaking a number of constitutional laws. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

If found guilty, you can be thrown out of office. They could also recommend further prosecution but it's never gotten beyond the congressional stage. The two attempts at impeachment were defeated in the Senate(our "upper house"). Charges are brought by the House of Representatives, but the Senate acts as judge/jury and has to agree to the House charges. In both cases, they didn't (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton). If Trump is brought up on Impeachment by the House, as Ginger points out, the Senate will not vote him guilty.

To answer the question I think you're getting to.... There is nothing proscribed as a specific penalty other than removal from office. There is also nothing specifically prohibited. Removal from office is the only thing the framers considered, but they do not say "and that is all". Had Nixon not resigned, he likely would have been impeached AND had all kinds of charges brought against him. By resigning and getting a blanket pardon, he stymied the many man-hours that congress had put in preparing charges against him.
 
Foolmewunz said:
If found guilty, you can be thrown out of office. They could also recommend further prosecution but it's never gotten beyond the congressional stage...
Click to expand...

E.g. making a profit from a foreign government is a violation of the emoluments clause and is impeachable but it isn't otherwise illegal. If a quid pro quo can be established, however, that's felony bribery.
 
Foolmewunz said:
If found guilty, you can be thrown out of office. They could also recommend further prosecution but it's never gotten beyond the congressional stage. The two attempts at impeachment were defeated in the Senate(our "upper house"). Charges are brought by the House of Representatives, but the Senate acts as judge/jury
Click to expand...

At the risk of being overly pedantic, the Senate acts like a jury, but the SCOTUS Chief Justice serves as the judge.
 
 
You know what kind of Candidate I want from the Dems in 2020?
Someone who sets himself up to do exactly everything Trump is doing, openly, and declaring how he is going to take foreign bribes and obstruct investigations, and dare Republicans to get outraged.
 
Trump retweeted

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Tammy Bruce
‏Verified account
@HeyTammyBruce

Trump Job Approval Jumps to 53% - Seven Points Higher Than Obama

IWV
‏Verified account
@IWV
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump has "delivered on his promises...He has a background in delivering economically. He's promised to do certain things. He did them." @HeyTammyBruce @IWV joined @marthamaccallum to weigh in on Bernie Sanders vs. Trump #Election2020. #IWpol #economy
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Barr is to begin an investigation into "anti-Trump bias" at the FBI and DoJ for their investigations into Trump
Click to expand...

I'd bet Trump has ordered a purge.

In other fun news, The DoJ has a new interpretation of the Emoluments clause, meaning that it's considered legal for foreign entities to donate "unlimited" money to the POTUS or other government officials, as long as it's done through a transaction with a company that he or she owns, such as a hotel or golf course
Click to expand...

Yeah, Barr also thinks he gets to decide if Trump obstructed justice. And Mulvaney thinks he gets to decide if Congress has a legitimate purpose in getting Trump's tax returns. And Trump thinks he gets to decide how government funds are appropriated. I'm beginning to see a certain pattern here. :rolleyes:

ETA: Speaking of golf courses, Trump makes a profit when he goes golfing by renting golf carts to the Secret Service to follow him around. That's actually a violation of the "domestic emoluments clause" Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 7, which says the president draws a salary but "he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
 
Last edited:
Barr's Rules of Obstruction:

1.) It can't be obstruction if there is no underlying crime
2.) If there is an underlying crime, see 1.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom