Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Mr.Trump’s election, long-delayed Trump projects have suddenly jump-started around the world, including in Argentina and Georgia. This may be especially noteworthy in light of Mr. Trump’s acknowledgment that he has raised business issues on calls with foreign officials.
Mere weeks before Mr. Trump spoke by phone with the President of Taiwan, dramatically altering American foreign policy, a businesswoman claiming to be associated with Mr. Trump’s conglomerate arrived in Taiwan and made inquiries about major new investments in luxury hotels.
The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office.
"Saying NO doesn't make it so."
Saying YES doesn't make it so also.
If anyone believes that if Nancy Pelosi and the dems DIDN'T have FACTUAL poof of ANY wronging by Trump that they wouldn't be out talking a bout impeachment and filing charges, then they do NOT know much.
The clause has been discussed at infinitude earlier in another thread and DIED because the case CANNOT be made.
The Brookings Institute is just another "progressive " think tank. They are entitled to their opinions.
I'm a Dem who voted for Donald Trump. My party need to rebuild and develop a message that people can get behind with tangible goals (not just feel good speak).
At this point Trump has done nothing to be impeached however...if he continues his hot streak of executives actions (something the GOP hated OBAMA for) and not working with congress then the impeachment is inevitable
".if he continues his hot streak of executives actions (something the GOP hated OBAMA for) and not working with congress then the impeachment is inevitable"
That makes NO sense.
If Obama signed MORE EO's and EM's then ANY President in HISTORY and impeachment was NEVER considered ( not talking about whackos) by the repub ran House, you say if Trump signs EO's to cancel out Obama's you say "impeachment is inevitable", or when Trump signs new ones that "impeachment is inevitable"
Why wasn't impeachment inevitable for Obama?
Obama had MORE EO/M's OVERTURNED by the courts then any other in HISTORY. Some in the SC by a 9-0 vote. Why wasn't he impeached for that?
If anyone believes that if Nancy Pelosi and the dems DIDN'T have FACTUAL poof of ANY wronging by Trump that they wouldn't be out talking a bout impeachment and filing charges, then they do NOT know much.
The clause has been discussed at infinitude earlier in another thread and DIED because the case CANNOT be made.
The Brookings Institute is just another "progressive " think tank. They are entitled to their opinions.
^^^^^ I don't think Trump should get impeached re the Emoluments Clause because, whether he is violating it or not, the voting public knew before voting that Trump has business interests outside the United States. I'm also NOT a progressive, a liberal, or a Democrat.
HOWEVER, the content in the post above is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the opinion is of anyone on CD re whether Trump is in violation of the Emoluments Clause or not. The opinion of any federal judge?.....doesn't matter. The opinion of any other judge....doesn't matter. The consensus opinion of the general public?.....doesn't matter. Ten more lawsuits could be filed....not one of those lawsuits would matter at all re the 'job fate' of the POTUS, as the current lawsuit doesn't matter either. Impeachment isn't the same as a regular civil lawsuit or criminal trial.
It doesn't even matter if the person is actually guilty or not.
Impeachment occurs in the House of Representatives, and re that FIRST step of removal, ALL that matters is if, in the OPINION (as it influences their votes) of members of the House of Representatives, if the person is guilty or not re any articles brought/filed. It doesn't matter if every other tribunal in the world would have come to a different conclusion or decision. ALL that ultimately matters re that first part of the process?.....the final tally of the VOTES of those 435 members re the specific articles of impeachment filed/brought to them as a group. If at least one article passes, then a trial is held in the Senate and, at the subsequent conclusion, ALL that matters is the final tally the VOTES of the 100 U.S. Senators. The members of Congress don't have to justify their votes to anyone except their constituents. The 'check' against them re a yea or nay vote is re-election.
Some people (progressives, liberals, Democrats) on various threads seem to think that enough Republican members of the House of Representatives would vote to impeach a sitting President of their own party, that impeaching Trump before 2018 is a possibility.
IMO, that is a pipe dream....not going to happen.
If Trump does get impeached, IMO, the process would only start if both the House of Representatives and the Senate flip to Democrat control after the 2018 election. That would be the group that would start the session in January of 2019.
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/inverse/here-are-the-current-bett_b_14285396.html]Here Are the Current Betting Odds on Trump Being Impeached | The Huffington Post[/url]
Of course the odds said Hilary was favored by quite a bit, but this is interesting.
Betting odds were that Hillary would win the presidency
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.