Why do you ask?
You don’t pay much attention to the news, do you?
China OKs 38 Trump Trademarks; Critics Say It Violates Emoluments Clause
China OKs trademarks for Ivanka Trump’s company on day she met with Xi
To be fair, since Trump has decreed that Andrew Jackson “was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War he said “There’s no reason for this,”” Trump has set executive precedent for time travel, so his precedent should also apply to his piss for profit scandal.
I was under the impression that only the hookers, and the hooker’s handlers, could be aware of what didn’t happen. And they weren’t allowed to speak out.
Personally, I think that whole story was fake news distributed by Democrats in order to console other Democrats over ol’ Hillary’s 2nd failure to become POTUS.
You seem to be under the impression that the way investigative law enforcement works, is that when the investigators (at, say, the FBI) find something out, they immediately publish it.
Therefore, if nothing has been published, there is no evidence!
But that’s not, in fact, the way it works.
(post shortened)
Ahem,
evidence
noun [ U ] us /ˈev·ɪ·dəns/
anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
I’ll suggest that you bring your evidence to your U.S. Senators, or U.S. Congressman. Tell them that you have evidence, impeachable evidence, that they can use to impeach Trump.
If you tell them, “If something may have happened”, or something similar, they will probably not take your claim(s) very seriously.
There are people who are calling for impeachment. In order to have an impeachment, you’ll need to supply evidence of an impeachable offense. Them’s the rules. And you’ll need to convince your U.S. Congressman that they should put your wishes above their re-election. Good luck with that.
If indeed there is evidence that is being gathered by official investigators but is not yet public, that evidence will come to light eventually. At which point it becomes actionable for the public’s political reaction, Congress’ political action, and perhaps even a special prosecutor’s action.
Until then we’ve got rumor, innuendo, hysteria, disingenuity, and stonewalling.
Admittedly the public statements about Chinese trademarks, assuming they prove true, look an awful lot like simply giving a remarkably transparent bribe to Trump because he’s now the President. One wonders how many other US trademark applications from other entrepreneurs are still languishing in China’s trademark office’s inboxes.
Here is the truth, unpalatable though it may be:
While Congress has unreviewable power to impeach for any act they collectively please, the reality of American politics and expectations are that impeachment will rest on the allegation of a specific violation (or violations) of law.
Johnson’s impeachment was for violation of the Tenure in Office Act.
Nixon’s near-impeachment was for obstruction of justice for the illegal firing of the special prosecutor and the refusal to comply with Congressional subpoenas following a Supreme Court ruling that they were valid.
And Clinton’s was for perjury and obstruction of justice for the acts of lying to a criminal grand jury while under oath concerning his activities with Monica Lewinsky.
If you believe that Congress can use the Emoluments Clause to sustain an impeachment, you’re simply wrong. Interpreting the Clause to forbid a sitting president from deriving income from his ownership of overseas assets in this manner has never been done and has zero support in existing caselaw.
In short: no. Not gonna happen.
Now, if you want to spin a narrative that begins, "AFter the FBI gets solid evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. . . " then I certainly agree you’ve described facts that could support an impeachment.
What I don’t agree with is any sense that this has yet happened, or will happen. Obviously, this is a guess about what the future may churn up. But right now, the claim that the FBI WILL, fer suresies, find such evidence is merely hopeful speculation.
Part II:
What frustrates me about these types of threads is that there is zero accountability to these predictions. When challenged, seldom if ever will anyone wager actual money on their predictions coming to pass. And when those predicted events don’t come to pass, returning to this thread to highlight the erroneous predictions is met with strong disapproval at the “gloating,” and loud indignant cries wondering why the questioner doesn’t “get a life” and how pathetic it is to rub peoples noses in their wrongness when they just wanted the right thing to happen.
None of that strikes me as the correct method for fighting ignorance.
Thanks for this analysis.
Is Congress prevented from using the Emoluments Clause in some way, or are you saying it’s super unlikely because it has never been done before?
I would argue that part of the reason it hasn’t been done before is that all (modern) candidates for office went through appropriate steps to avoid triggering the clause. Trump is the first President in my memory who is able to milk so much profit while in office, via both domestic and foreign monies.
Don’t get me wrong: I detect no (majority) will in Congress right now to impeach for any reason, valid or otherwise.
Congress (well, House) is not prevented from using the fact that Trump sneezed the other day from impeaching him.
What if it did, though? I mean, there’s no support in existing caselaw, okay, but who makes sure that Congress is following caselaw when it impeaches someone?
Let’s say that, in 2018, Democrats win so convincingly that not only do they sweep every open seat, they some how win seats that weren’t even up for election, giving them 100% control of all seats in congress. The next day, they say, “For grievous abuse of spray tan, and because we don’t like his hair, we’re impeaching Donald Trump.” Who can step in and say, “Sorry, there’s no caselaw to support that charge, so you can’t do it?”
As I mentioned above, the betting markets are at about even money last I checked. If you’re certain that the conjecture is incorrect, you’re free to put money down too. I’m less certain, and therefore don’t want to bet on a coin toss.
Absolutely no one. As I said in my first post above, Congress’ decision is unreviewable.
But there’s a range of theoretically possible outcomes, and then there’s a much narrower range of outcomes that are at least likely enough to merit more than wishful consideration.
Today, the idea that Congress would ground an impeachment proceeding on specious grounds is a member of the former, but not the latter.
You must, at some level, know this.
Give me a reference point to find this even money betting market. I will absolutely place money on the lack of impeachment if it’s even money payout.
The latter. Congress’ power to impeach is judicially unreviewable. They can impeach him for using Twitter or wearing white after Labor Day.
The problem is that the history of the Clause doesn’t support that interpretation. For Congress to gin up an impeachment on grounds like that would simply never happen. It’s possible, in the sense that no legal mechanism prevents it; it’s not in any way a viable scenario in terms of realism.
And in terms of realistic discussion: what are the odds that either house of Congress flips to Democratic control in the midterms?
This dynamic reminds me of an Isaac Asimov short story, one of his robot, Three Laws series.
An unknown defect in the manufacturing process leaves one robot in the RB series (“Herbie”) able to read minds. Susan Calvin, the brilliant robopsychologist, works with Herbie to help uncover the step that gave him mind-reading powers. In private, she is relieved when Herbie tells her that the man she has a crush on also likes her; she was worried that a cute girl she saw him with might be competition. Herbie assures her that this was his cousin.
An ambitious engineer learns from Herbie that the director of the lab will soon retire, and that he will be the successor. The lab director learns that Herbie, while talented at math, can’t understand it as well as the director.
All these stories collapse when they’re all together with Herbie: the crush reveals he’s engaged to the girl he brought to the office, who is not a cousin at all. The lab director has no intention of resigning, but is stunned to leam Herbie can do math at a higher level than he can.
Calvin figures it out: the First Law of Robotics prevents harm to a human being, and a mind-reading robot knows about mental disappointment and embarrassment perfectly. . . so it told each of them things they wanted to hear, as opposed to things that were true.
These “Then Trump will get impeached, after the Democrats sweep to power in 2018!” threads read very much like they were written by Herbie.
Interestingly, that short story was written in 1941 and takes place in 2021. Just around the corner.
Have you tried meditation? Or, in your case, prayer? Those can help rid the mind of distractive influences.