# The Trump Presidency HAS to end with Impeachment... right? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 11, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406 "2017-05-11T23:48:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/401 "2017-05-18T13:06:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I heard the Hillary Clinton Hit Squad was going to take out Roger Ailes. > > So if he suddenly shows up dead, you’ll know. OMG!!! :eek::eek: ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/402 "2017-05-18T13:07:24Z")
nm ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/403 "2017-05-18T13:56:00Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > It’s hard to keep up here. > > [**Exclusive: Trump campaign had at least 18 undisclosed contacts with Russians: sources**](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia-contacts-idUSKCN18E106) > That sounds pretty bad. I wonder what they were discussing that they didn’t want to come out. > > O-kay. Hey - didn’t we hear something about this last February? > > [**Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence**](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html) > > Yeah. That was last Valentine’s day. It’s all coming back to me … > > …\… You’re just a big silly! They were trading borscht recipes-- for Valentine’s Day. Borscht is a very Valentine-y dish because it’s red, dontcha know. Red for _lurve_, not Red for, you know “Reds.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/404 "2017-05-18T14:06:17Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > OMG!!! :eek::eek: She can reach anyone. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/405 "2017-05-18T14:16:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So, when you learned that, what did you think about the Emoluments Clause? What does it actually prohibit, and how would that prohibition operate? I am not sure that this is a hypothetical or a real example anymore, but in either case, the answer is the same. Obama should not make a profit off of books sold over seas while he is a sitting president. How exactly he goes about this, I am not sure what is best (charity, donation to the govt, or just not receiving royalties), but I would be concerned, as a citizen, if I knew that he was receiving substantial monies from foreign actors. We had this discussion about a year ago, when we were talking about McDonnell (maybe) and his questionable income and gifts, when I was talking about how I didn’t think that any govt officials of any type should be receiving any sort of valuable gifts from anyone without clearing them through an ethics committee first. People at that point said I was too strict, and that no one would want the job if you cut off all the perks. I personally think that being president is perk enough, and that if there are some obligations that come with being in the most powerful office in the world, well, that’s just the price to pay. > [@](#): > > So what, though? The question isn’t what I think about Trump’s non-existent moral framework. The question is: what, specifically, does the Emoluments Clause prohibit, and how do you know? I honestly don’t know. I would have thought it would, as the plain reading of the text in the constitution would suggest, prevent govt officials from receiving money or valuable gifts from foreign entities. As that is not the case, I suppose it is more like an appendix. Serves no purpose, and it only gets noticed when it is inflamed. The point that I think that you are making is that the clause has no purpose, no meaning, and no enforcement mechanism. I understand that point, and that seems to be what congress is operating under at the moment, but I thoroughly disagree that this constitutional clause should be so ignored and put aside. > [@Bricker](#): > > I’m asking you what they stand for, specifically. > > For example, the conflict of interest laws Congress passed specifcally excludes the President. I assume you’re OK with that, based on what you just said. (" …have not been litigated so they stand as they are for now.") I am not okay with that. I kinda understand why it exists, in that it is impossible for a president to recuse themselves, and it is possible that even in a blind or clear trust, the president may have a conflict of interest that cannot be resolved, so it makes sense that a president doesn’t need to always worry about that sort of thing. The problem is that these laws invite abuse by unscrupulous actors. I do not know how the laws could be easily changed in order to accommodate both the need for a president to not need to recuse himself, while protecting the office from those who would abuse it, but I wold say the current setup is problematic. > [@](#): > > Since the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act has a limit of less than $400, I asked if the purchase by New Zealand retailer Whitcoulls of 1,000 copies of _Dreams of My Father_ violated the Emoluments Clause. How about 10,000 copies? > > You’re not really answering these specifics. As the reason for the FGaDA is to keep office holders from having to declare and clear every penne-ante gift they receive, the idea is that these gifts would not be enough to sway the official’s opinion enough to create a conflict of interest. The $400 limit sounds good. I would say that if it is greater than that, then even a president should be required to return or donate the money, or face sanction by courts or congress. My issue is that there does not seem to be ANY trigger for the clause. I’ve asked if trump were to blatantly and obviously violate the clause, by say, publically taking a 100 million dollar check from putin, and declaring it is in exchange for our backing out of nato, would that trigger any sort of sanction, and got no answer, so I have to assume the answer is, and that you don’t want to give it, is “no”, and that I was right at the beginning, when I said that trump could get away with anything. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Maybe he could just declare bankruptcy and move on to his next presidency. I do hear there are some hotter, younger countries out there. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/406 "2017-05-18T14:56:38Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > You’re just a big silly! They were trading borscht recipes-- for Valentine’s Day. Borscht is a very Valentine-y dish because it’s red, dontcha know. Red for _lurve_, not Red for, you know “Reds.” Naw, see, 18? For Borscht and Valentine’s day? I’d believe two for Borscht, maybe five for the Valentine. So you’ve got seven. I’ll give you seven. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/407 "2017-05-18T15:53:13Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I personally think that being president is perk enough, and that if there are some obligations that come with being in the most powerful office in the world, well, that’s just the price to pay. That’s certainly a position to take, but I hope you see that it’s in the strong minority: there is no real support, from either major party, to impose that strict a scheme. Congress certainly COULD impose it. But I’m saying that they haven’t, and don’t seem to want to. > [@](#): > > As that is not the case, I suppose it is more like an appendix. Serves no purpose, and it only gets noticed when it is inflamed. > > The point that I think that you are making is that the clause has no purpose, no meaning, and no enforcement mechanism. I understand that point, and that seems to be what congress is operating under at the moment, but I thoroughly disagree that this constitutional clause should be so ignored and put aside. Right. But here’s the way our system works: typically cases arise under constitutional guarantees, and then courts adjudicate them, and the legislature passes laws that give them shape. The Fourth Amendment has been the subject of roughly one zillion Supreme Court decisions. And as a result we have a reasonably good picture of most of the Fourth Amendment’s contours. The Emoluments Clause has never once been construed by the Supreme Court. So I’m suggesting that while this may be a great place to start framing it, the plain fact is that the strict view you advise was not adopted by George Washington, who accepted gifts from the French (painting and a key to the Bastille) without an apparent concern about triggering the Emoluments Clause, even though the people that had just approved the Clause were all right there. I am also suggesting that now, you cannot really say, “This is what the Clause does actually mean,” when no one in power treated it that way for the past 240 years. You can of course say that we should adopt a new meaning. But can you really say, “…and then apply it retroactively?” ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/408 "2017-06-01T00:06:16Z")
Back to the original topic. Things are progressing nicely, slowly as expected, but nicely. Did a check of Fox News for their tone these days and if that one snapshot of time is any indication they seem to be quietly starting to inch in the direction of the lifeboats off of the S.S. Trump, just in case. And the number of ambitious people who are willing to go on record defending him is getting smaller and smaller. ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2017, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/409 "2017-06-01T01:15:44Z")
Hell, if you’re ambitious, you shouldn’t have anything to DO with this administration. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/410 "2017-06-14T16:43:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Does the Emoluments Clause contain an exception for blind trusts? Where? > > I’ve tried to answer every question asked of me. If I miss one, flag it to my attention again, and I’ll certainly get to it. > > I have elsewhere provided an overview of my reasoning, but briefly: I argue that the Emoluments Clause as it was understood in 1790 is what the Clause must mean today, absent some intervening court construction. > > George Washington accepted personal gifts of [key to the Bastille](http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/bastille-key/) from the Marquis de Lafayette, and a [new and elegant print of the King of the French in an ornate frame](https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Jean-Baptiste%2C%20chevalier%20de%20Ternant%2022%20december%201791&s=1111311111&r=1) from Jean-Baptiste, the French Ambassador. > > This was acceptable to the people who had literally just passed the Emoluments Clause. > > The word didn’t mean “anything of value,” in other words. It referred to benefits in money or in other items of financial value, other than periodic pay (salary), received as a result of occupying a particular civil or military position. See, e.g., “the pay . . . in addition to the Emoluments,” as appears in 19 MASS. RESOLVES, supra note 2, at 535 (1776-77); see also 22 J. CONT. CONG. 398 (Jul. 18, 1782) (“his emoluments and one half of his pay be suspended”); 21 J. CONT. CONG. 1079 (Oct. 29, 1781) (“his request for pay cannot be complied with, and that all the emoluments he derives from the United States are to cease”). Separately listing pay from emoluments is exceedingly common in the record. E.g., 5 CONN. RECORDS, supra note 2, at 207 (“Pay and emolument”); DEL. COUNCIL MINUTES, supra note 2, at 906 (“pay and emoluments”); 23 J. CONT. CONG. 541 (Sept. 3, 1782) (repeating the phrase “pay and emoluments” three times on a single page). (Quoting “The Original Meaning of ‘Emoluments’ in the Constitution,” Georgia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, footnotes 25-27). > > I think the spirit of the clause is open to wide interpretation. I’m more interested in what the OPERATION of the Clause is. > > Your own link says that the Nobel Prize money was acceptable “primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.” > > If that’s the operative word, then which of Trump’s supposed violations come at the hands of a “governmental entity?” > > In any event: > > Also from your link. > > That article was written before Trump took office. Congress had ample opportunity to decide what to do, and did nothing. Even if I take your article as gospel, then, the answer is plainly that at present, the Emoluments Clause violation (if it exists) has no consequence. Sorry to take so long to get back to this. My busy work periods run in fits and starts. If I’ve distilled all your language down to its essentials, what I think you are saying is that because there is no case law on the subject, the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply. Huh? I don’t believe you can ignore the spirit and intent of the Constitution on that basis. Trump’s situation is _exactly what you yourself_ define as emoluments: “It referred to benefits in money or in other items of financial value, other than periodic pay (salary), received as a result of occupying a particular civil or military position.” You know better than most that case law is made when new issues/situations are tested against existing legislative law and/or what is stated in the Constitution. To slightly alter the famous Carl Sandburg saying, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, you argue equity. And if all three are against you, you pound the table and yell like hell.” In this instance, I think the facts, law and equity are all _entirely_ on the side of the Constitution. Just because it has not previously been interpreted doesn’t mean it won’t be now or should not be. Re the Obama case, I was aware of what it said when I cited you to the link. But I think you’ve cherry-picked some very narrow language and have misinterpreted it in the cases against Trump. It’s exactly _because_ of that language that the case against Trump is strengthened. In Obama’s case, you argue that in my link it says that the Nobel Prize money was acceptable “primarily because the Norwegian group that awards the prize was not deemed a governmental entity.” You then ask, “If that’s the operative word, then which of Trump’s supposed violations come at the hands of a “governmental entity?”” This argument makes no sense to me at all. He and his family profit – rather flagrantly, in my opinion – from foreign governments in so many ways it’s mind boggling. From rooms and event venues rented in his hotels, to “donations” made to his charitable organizations that then flow through to him personally, from loans made by foreign entities where private business and government are seamlessly blended as in the cases of Russia and Saudi Arabia… surely you understand this? There has never been such shameless disregard of a Section in our Constitution – so important to the framers that it is enshrined in Article 1! The Emoluments Clause is not just a quaint antiquity. The entire point of it is to prevent corruption of our leaders by foreign governments through pay-to-play schemes. Trump is a walking advertisement for pay-to-play. I don’t think we will understand the operation of the Clause until it _has_ been interpreted into case law. But to ignore the spirit of the law simply because it’s never previously been tested seems like a weak argument to me. Interpretation of that Clause has never been tested in 240 years because prior to now, it never had to be. Today, I’d say interpretation of it is 240 years overdue. I think the strongest part of what you argued is that Congress has chosen to be unconcerned over the consent issue and to do nothing which, as a practical matter, has resulted in no consequences to Trump. But I would modify that statement in a couple of ways. Let’s make it clear: _This_ Congress has chosen to do nothing. But based on the lawsuit now filed by Democrats in Congress, that would no longer appear to be the case. It’s true they are not working within the framework of congressional procedure, but obviously they can’t. Yet. Should the makeup of the Congress change significantly at the mid-terms, I think you will be surprised (though you should not be) at how fast they act. By failing to act, _this_ Congress has made Trump’s profiteering a political issue and not a legal one. Shame on them. Of course as you know, IANAL. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/411 "2017-06-14T16:56:47Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > Back to the original topic. > Things are progressing nicely, slowly as expected, but nicely. Did a check of Fox News for their tone these days and if that one snapshot of time is any indication they seem to be quietly starting to inch in the direction of the lifeboats off of the S.S. Trump, just in case. And the number of ambitious people who are willing to go on record defending him is getting smaller and smaller. I hadn’t seen Greg Jarrett in 20 years and he shows up on Hannity with the most repellent slavish talking point rant I have ever seen. Wow. I thought he was a normal person when he was on Court TV. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/412 "2017-06-14T20:32:31Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > … He and his family profit – rather flagrantly, in my opinion – from foreign governments in so many ways it’s mind boggling. From rooms and event venues rented in his hotels, to “donations” made to his charitable organizations that then flow through to him personally, from loans made by foreign entities where private business and government are seamlessly blended as in the cases of Russia and Saudi Arabia… surely you understand this? There has never been such shameless disregard of a Section in our Constitution --\*\* so important to the framers that it is enshrined in Article 1! \*\* The Emoluments Clause is not just a quaint antiquity. The entire point of it is to prevent corruption of our leaders by foreign governments through pay-to-play schemes. Trump is a walking advertisement for pay-to-play. … Your entire post is well-argued, but I had to highlight this passage. Because the GOP Congress has so far made it clear that they put party before country, a de facto ‘normalization’ of Trump’s blatant corruption has lulled many Americans into indifference. But as you say, the framers of the Constitution saw corruption and potential foreign influence as issues of so great import, as to merit placement in Article 1. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/413 "2017-06-14T20:39:37Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > If I’ve distilled all your language down to its essentials, what I think you are saying is … Returning the favor, what I think you’re saying is: yes, there’s no precedent, but the courts could craft specifics, or Congress could act. To which I say: yes, of course. Both those outcomes are possible. I confidently predict neither will happen. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/414 "2017-06-14T21:29:21Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Your entire post is well-argued, but I had to highlight this passage. Because the GOP Congress has so far made it clear that they put party before country, a de facto ‘normalization’ of Trump’s blatant corruption has lulled many Americans into indifference. But as you say, the framers of the Constitution saw corruption and potential foreign influence as issues of so great import, as to merit placement in Article 1. Thank you. 🙂 I did try to address what you pointed out in my next-to-last paragraph. And I completely agree with what you stated with respect to the GOP. As to normalization, my hope is bolstered somewhat based on some things we’re seeing around the country pertaining to a re-engagement by left-leaning types in the democratic process. In the Virginia primary election that took place on Tuesday, Democratic turnout increased by a whopping 170%. That’s going to leave a mark come the mid-terms. I look forward also to seeing how Jon Ossoff does next week. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/415 "2017-06-14T21:30:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Returning the favor, what I think you’re saying is: yes, there’s no precedent, but the courts could craft specifics, or Congress could act. > > To which I say: yes, of course. Both those outcomes are possible. > > I confidently predict neither will happen. Ok. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/416 "2017-06-14T22:28:40Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > Thank you. 🙂 > > I did try to address what you pointed out in my next-to-last paragraph. And I completely agree with what you stated with respect to the GOP. As to normalization, my hope is bolstered somewhat based on some things we’re seeing around the country pertaining to a re-engagement by left-leaning types in the democratic process. In the Virginia primary election that took place on Tuesday, Democratic turnout increased by a whopping 170%. That’s going to leave a mark come the mid-terms. > > I look forward also to seeing how Jon Ossoff does next week. Me, as well. Without putting too much weight on the significance of the outcome, of course, remembering how much money is being spent to defeat Ossoff. (And plenty is being spent to elect him, too.) One thing this whole horror-show has accomplished is to remind me that many life-long Republicans are people who _do_ put country before party; expressions of what is surely genuine dismay at the Trump Administration’s violations of long-held norms aren’t difficult to find, either in print or on television news. For me, that’s a heartening development. ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/417 "2017-06-14T22:45:26Z")
Another step on the road. [The Washington Post reports](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_trumpmueller625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6ba77d08ca0b) that the special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice. > [@](#): > > The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said. > > … > > Trump had received private assurances from former FBI Director James B. Comey starting in January that he was not personally under investigation. Officials say that changed shortly after Comey’s firing. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/418 "2017-06-14T23:03:58Z")
> [@Sunny\_Daze](#): > > Another step on the road. > > [The Washington Post reports](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-low_trumpmueller625pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.6ba77d08ca0b) that the special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice. LOL, I was just coming here to post that. Happy birthday, Mr. President. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/419 "2017-06-14T23:13:25Z")
At this point, I could picture the outcome being every American _except_ Trump gets impeached. ---
**Author:** ![wolfman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a8b319/32.png) [@wolfman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfman)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406/420 "2017-06-15T22:35:17Z")
> [@wolfman](#): > > Back to the original topic. > Things are progressing nicely, slowly as expected, but nicely. Did a check of Fox News for their tone these days and if that one snapshot of time is any indication they seem to be quietly starting to inch in the direction of the lifeboats off of the S.S. Trump, just in case. And the number of ambitious people who are willing to go on record defending him is getting smaller and smaller. And the inching seems to have become more pronounced now, as a check over at Fox’s site, on this the day the that Trump is under investigation was reported, shows no Pro Trump content or opinion on the top “Page”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-trump-presidency-has-to-end-with-impeachment-right/786406.md?page=22)