The last 4 weeks of utter Trump fukkery

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The last 4 weeks

 

[acri1]

And about 80% of Republicans still love him.

 

[gangreen]

chaos campaign = chaos presidency

I expected fukkery at this point. Its not surprising. Its only going to get worse when the base erodes even more

 

[FabTrey]

and why he ain't getting impeached? are we really gonna endure 3 1/2 more years of this fukkery? what a great country brehs. presidents do get impeached for far less offense around the world. look at south korea.

 

[Shogun]

and why he ain't getting impeached? are we really gonna endure 3 1/2 more years of this fukkery? what a great country brehs. presidents do get impeached for far less offense around the world. look at south korea.

There's no fukkery clause as grounds for impeachment, unfortunately.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

There's no fukkery clause as grounds impeachment, unfortunately.

Of course there is. There's a list of about 200 things Trump has done in 6 months that qualify as "fukkery", of which Republicans would have immediately impeached Obama for any single item.

Its not that theres no grounds for impeachment. There were grounds for impeachment the moment he was sworn in. Its just about getting to the point where Repubs finally admit they can no longer hope to get anything out of keeping him on, at which point they'll finally agree to follow the rule of law.

 

[Althalucian]

Of course there is. There's a list of about 200 things Trump has done in 6 months that qualify as "fukkery", of which Republicans would have immediately impeached Obama for any single item.

Its not that theres no grounds for impeachment. There were grounds for impeachment the moment he was sworn in. Its just about getting to the point where Repubs finally admit they can no longer hope to get anything out of keeping him on, at which point they'll finally agree to follow the rule of law.

At least it will be a good day. When that happens is the day the Trump voter is going to stop voting.

 

[Shogun]

Of course there is. There's a list of about 200 things Trump has done in 6 months that qualify as "fukkery", of which Republicans would have immediately impeached Obama for any single item.

Its not that theres no grounds for impeachment. There were grounds for impeachment the moment he was sworn in. Its just about getting to the point where Repubs finally admit they can no longer hope to get anything out of keeping him on, at which point they'll finally agree to follow the rule of law.

Such as?

 

[Anerdyblackguy]

All in one month. Obama only controversy was him wearing a Tan suit.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Such as?

Emoluments Clause was the very first thing, violating the Constitution the instant he was sworn in. I dont think I need to go over all the other grounds in this dumpster fire of a presidency - if you've been paying even a little attention you should be well aware. Meanwhile Repubs resorted to coming up with unfounded conspiracy theories to try to stoke Obama impeachment talk. They were mad he put mustard on a hamburger.

 

[DonKnock]

:DKHater:

 

[Shogun]

Emoluments Clause was the very first thing, violating the Constitution the instant he was sworn in. I dont think I need to go over all the other grounds in this dumpster fire of a presidency - if you've been paying even a little attention you should be well aware. Meanwhile Repubs resorted to coming up with unfounded conspiracy theories to try to stoke Obama impeachment talk. They were mad he put mustard on a hamburger.

Those lawsuits are in the works, if I'm not mistaken.

How the emoluments clause is being used to sue Trump

There's a process to impeachment. In this case the issues are being pursued via that process.
What from the past 4 weeks of fukkery is impeachable? You know....the topic of this thread...

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Those lawsuits are in the works, if I'm not mistaken.

How the emoluments clause is being used to sue Trump

There's a process to impeachment. In this case the issues are being pursued via that process.
What from the past 4 weeks of fukkery is impeachable? You know....the topic of this thread...

Do some research on what actually constitutes grounds for impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was intentionally left vague and open to interpretation so that it was generally left open to Congress when they decided a president should be removed through impeachment. It's a political proceeding and not necessarily a criminal one.

The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as 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.

After the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution had to be ratified by the states. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of essays, known as the Federalist Papers, urging support of the Constitution. In Federalist No. 65, Hamilton explained impeachment. He defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

For the more than 200 years since the Constitution was adopted, Congress has seriously considered impeachment only 18 times. Thirteen of these cases involved federal judges. The “high crimes and misdemeanors” that the House charged against these judges included being habitually drunk, showing favoritism on the bench, using judicial power unlawfully, using the office for financial gain, unlawfully punishing people for contempt of court, submitting false expense accounts, getting special deals from parties appearing before the court, bullying people in open court, filing false income tax returns, making false statements while under oath, and disclosing confidential information.

Any of that sound familiar?

Originally the term considered was "maladministration", which is maybe the best single-word description of the Trump administration there is. No president in 4 or 8 years has ever come close to the amount of potentially impeachable offenses that Donald Trump has tallied in 6 months.

 

[acri1]

and why he ain't getting impeached? are we really gonna endure 3 1/2 more years of this fukkery? what a great country brehs. presidents do get impeached for far less offense around the world. look at south korea.

Because Republicans.

 

[Shogun]

Do some research on what actually constitutes grounds for impeachment. "High crimes and misdemeanors" was intentionally left vague and open to interpretation so that it was generally left open to Congress when they decided a president should be removed through impeachment. It's a political proceeding and not necessarily a criminal one.



Any of that sound familiar?

Originally the term considered was "maladministration", which is maybe the best single-word description of the Trump administration there is. No president in 4 or 8 years has ever come close to the amount of potentially impeachable offenses that Donald Trump has tallied in 6 months.

Your point that it was intentionally left vague and open to interpretation is undercutting your whole argument. Again, I ask - what, in the past 4 weeks, is impeachable?
I'm not grandstanding, I'm genuinely curious what you see as beyond the pale, considering that very vagueness.