Butt-Hurt Trump Takes to Twitter Again (Part 1)

[kaylasdad99]

@Johnny_L.A

Strike two! We have touchdown! All net!

Yahtzee!

[Fiveyearlurker]

I’m not sure what he’s getting at with this tweet:

“The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only…”

What, exactly, does he expect to happen after he goes to the Supreme Court and they reread Article I of the Constitution to him and explain what the House of Representatives having the sole power of impeachment" means?

[Slash1972]

The Supreme Court says “Sorry, those terms of impeachment are not ‘High Crimes & Misdemeanors’ as defined in the Constitution”

[Skywatcher]

@Fiveyearlurker

I’m not sure what he’s getting at with this tweet:

“The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only…”

What, exactly, does he expect to happen after he goes to the Supreme Court and they reread Article I of the Constitution to him and explain what the House of Representatives having the sole power of impeachment" means?

If he really did nothing wrong, why even bother trying to get the Supremes involved at such an early juncture?

[Skywatcher]

@Slash1972

The Supreme Court says “Sorry, those terms of impeachment are not ‘High Crimes & Misdemeanors’ as defined in the Constitution”

26 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment and removal from office is Congress’ duty alone.

[Slash1972]

@Skywatcher

26 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment and removal from office is Congress’ duty alone.

So what? This new court can’t rule in a different way?

[ThelmaLou]

@Skywatcher

26 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that impeachment and removal from office is Congress’ duty alone.

That was then. This is now.

I think thump thinks (I use the term advisedly) that the SC is his **personal **court to fix his grievances. Like when you have a judge in your pocket 'cause s/he owes you. And who’s to say he’s wrong?

[Skywatcher]

There has to be a new case argued in front of the Supremes for them to overturn a previous decision. What case would iDJiT have?

[VinylTurnip]

@Fiveyearlurker

I’m not sure what he’s getting at with this tweet:

“The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only…”

What, exactly, does he expect to happen after he goes to the Supreme Court and they reread Article I of the Constitution to him and explain what the House of Representatives having the sole power of impeachment" means?

It is of course no revelation by now—to anyone who is paying attention and is not deeply mired in soothing partisan denial— that the president is a bona fide fucking imbecile, but he still manages to astound me on a near-daily basis.

[enipla]

@Fiveyearlurker

I’m not sure what he’s getting at with this tweet:

“The Mueller Report, despite being written by Angry Democrats and Trump Haters, and with unlimited money behind it ($35,000,000), didn’t lay a glove on me. I DID NOTHING WRONG. If the partisan Dems ever tried to Impeach, I would first head to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only…”

What, exactly, does he expect to happen after he goes to the Supreme Court and they reread Article I of the Constitution to him and explain what the House of Representatives having the sole power of impeachment" means?

I would prefer if they just tack on another obstruction of justice charge.

[DesertDog]

@Slash1972

Tariffs cause foreign imports to cost more, at which point Americans start buying “Made in the USA” tariff-less goods because they are cheaper.

You might ask Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley how high tariffs worked out, both for the country and them personally.

@Wiki

Threats of retaliation by other countries began long before the bill was enacted into law in June 1930. As it passed the House of Representatives in May 1929, boycotts broke out and foreign governments moved to increase rates against American products, even though rates could be increased or decreased by the Senate or by the conference committee. By September 1929, Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners, but threats of retaliatory actions were ignored.

In May 1930, Canada, the country’s most loyal trading partner, retaliated by imposing new tariffs on 16 products that accounted altogether for around 30% of U.S. exports to Canada. Canada later also forged closer economic links with the British Empire via the British Empire Economic Conference of 1932. France and Britain protested and developed new trade partners. Germany developed a system of trade via clearing.

In 1932, with the depression only having worsened for workers and farmers despite Smoot and Hawley’s promises of prosperity from a high tariff, the two lost their seats in the elections that year.

@Euphonious_Polemic

Who gives a shit about any of this?

The question is:

Will tariffs help TRUMP?

If the answer is “yes”, then tariffs are good. Case closed.

In a nutshell.

[Kobal2]

@Slash1972

The Supreme Court says “Sorry, those terms of impeachment are not ‘High Crimes & Misdemeanors’ as defined in the Constitution”

Do you know an extended version of the Constitution we don’t ? The public domain one doesn’t seem to bother defining “High Crimes & Misdemeanors”. Or was that the joke ?

[Slash1972]

@Kobal2

Do you know an extended version of the Constitution we don’t ? The public domain one doesn’t seem to bother defining “High Crimes & Misdemeanors”. Or was that the joke ?

Sorry: "The Supreme Court says “Sorry, those terms of impeachment are not the ‘High Crimes & Misdemeanors’ referenced in the Constitution”

[Kobal2]

BTW, from Wiki, on the original meaning of the phrase, as influenced by 18th century British law :

@wiki

Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. 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.

Emphasis mine. MINE ! You can’t have any !

[Slash1972]

@Kobal2

BTW, from Wiki, on the original meaning of the phrase, as influenced by 18th century British law :

Emphasis mine. MINE ! You can’t have any !

Is the US Supreme Court under some obligation to reference 18th century British law when making their rulings?

[JohnT]

Well, if they want to determine the intent of how a number of 18th-Century British-subjects-cum-American-Rebellion-Leaders thought on the subject, then… yes? Not an “obligation”, of course, but to determine their intent, you have to understand their thinking… and their sources.

[Skywatcher]

Seems to me that iDJiT would try to get the Supremes to overturn that 1993 ruling by arguing little more than “they’re being mean!” Overturning any ruling based on such an argument would make the Supremes a joke and set a very bad precedent.

[Slash1972]

@JohnT

Well, if they want to determine the intent of how a number of 18th-Century British-subjects-cum-American-Rebellion-Leaders thought on the subject, then… yes? Not an “obligation”, of course, but to determine their intent, you have to understand their thinking… and their sources.

But they don’t NEED to do anything other than say “Those are not the High Crimes and Misdemeanors the Constitution means. Those Articles of Impeachment are invalid.”

[JohnT]

We get to that point, then revolution needs to be a serious topic.

[Slash1972]

@JohnT

We get to that point, then revolution needs to be a serious topic.

I agree, but it seems some people think “precedent” will prevent the USSC from overruling earlier SC rulings.