As expected, the House voted on this bill today. It passed 419-3.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
As expected, the House voted on this bill today. It passed 419-3.
Who didn't vote?
I don't read a lot into the Sessions relationship just because we don't know what it actually is. We have what the MSM reports, but not the actual relationship. What was discussed prior to the appointment and what we have after may be completely different than what we think. Has to play out some more. What I do like is Trump isn't worried about what is being reported.
He wants him to resign so he doesn't have to fire him. Trump wants a new attorney general that will reign in the Special Prosecutor's overreach.
Last edited:
We see Trump himself publicly proclaiming his disappointment in Sessions. We see him driving that point home with repeated tweets. We see him demonstrating phenomenal public disloyalty and disrespect toward one of his earliest and most loyal supporters. We see Trump oblivious to the support Members of Congress are showing for Sessions and the new strong criticism from these same people against Trump. We see normally supportive media outlets like Breitbart taking an anti-Trump stance on this matter.
Trump needs friends to get things done in Washington and he seems to be doing everything he can to convince people that Trump is no friend of theirs. It's Trump first and, if it suits Trump, under the bus with his supporters.
Suspend judgement if you wish. Consider some behind-the scenes relationship if you wish. I'm going with what is publicly obvious.
For understanding Trump relationships, this piece may be helpful. Trump creates and thrives on chaos. What's going on with Sessions is not new for Trump. It's just Trump being Trump. However, he is president now and Trump's chaotic ways will not work forever. Trump being Trump is what will get him impeached.
He took a big step in that direction by demonstrating disloyalty to loyalist Sessions and thereby showing Members of Congress that for Trump loyalty is not a two-way street. He'll need loyal friends when impeachment proceedings start and he will not have them.
Gentleman Pence waits in the wings.
Last edited:
How's that working for Trump? Sessions is digging in. Now what will Trump do?
Trump will fire him soon, in the same cowardly manner he did Comey. People think he is like he was on his TV show, but he's not. He is a cowardly bully, albiet a rich one, who won't get his hands dirty. The Apprentice was scripted and the people getting fired new it ahead of time.
So.......a new AG will come in, put a halt to Muller and T will claim that he had nothing to do with it
Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
So.......a new AG will come in, put a halt to Muller and T will claim that he had nothing to do with it
Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
That might be Trump's hope but I do not think it would play out that way. Trump has done terrible damage to himself in recent days by treating Sessions as he did. Remarkably, he continues it today with yet another tweet. If Trump fires Sessions and then gets Mueller booted, lawmakers would likely send Trump a veto-proof bill that would establish Mueller as a special prosecutor, a position totally free of White House influence.
With gentleman Pence waiting in the wings, and with Trump rattling congressional Republicans by attacking Trump-loyal Sessions, the Republicans who have the power to move against Trump are increasingly likely to exercise that power. Keep in mind, Republicans have already launched at least three probes into Trump, not counting the Mueller probe. They are not likely to let this go.
One can only hope.
Congress could certainly write up and overwhelming pass a bill establishing a particular individual as a special prosecutor, but first they'd have to set the Constitution on fire and let it burn completely to ashes.
It would be much easier and quicker to impeach the president than it would be for congress to start exercising Executive Branch authority on its own.
As mentioned, we don't know that relationship Trump has with Sessions. May be nothing more than a distraction. Notice he hasn't fired Sessions.
If it is by design to be a distraction, like the transgender stuff with military, it is somewhat brillant based on the other madness that is going on.
If it is by design to be a distraction, like the transgender stuff with military, it is somewhat brillant based on the other madness that is going on.
Could be he may just want to light a fire and have Sessions be more aggressive with the leaks and other investigations. He's expected to announce several leak investigations. So I say more please.
The recusal by Sessions with the Russian thing allowed this Special Prosecutor witch hunt to take hold creating an unnecessary major distraction, but it's water under the bridge at this point. Firing Sessions would probably create a mess as it would be hard to get a confirmation of another AG.
Impeachment on what grounds? This Russian thing is bogus and even if he fired Sessions that's not an impeachable offense.
There needs to be some kind of high crime, or high misdemeanor, of which there has been no evidence thus far. Lots of very creative, wishful thinking, though. At this point all they've really got is, "I don't like him, he Tweets too much, he's orange, and I'm butthurt because he won the election."
Burn the constitution completely to ashes? I don't get your meaning. Numerous special counsels and special prosecutors have been deployed over the years under various acts of law, have they not?
Distraction from what? Distraction for what reason?
While one congressman has already introduced an article of impeachment that cites obstruction of justice, most House Democrats consider this to be premature. The article does answer your question. In this case, the cited grounds are obstruction of justice.
Numerous commentators and scholars have suggested grounds for impeachment exist or could come to exist. They include obstruction of justice, emoluments clause breech and self-pardon (if Trump pardoned himself). Whether any of these are credible or not depends on the point of view of the person arguing it.
Impeachment is more of a political act than a matter of presidential guilt or innocence. If the political will develops in congress to impeach, impeachment proceedings will begin. The cited grounds will be secondary. Impeachment is not like a trial in court. It's a constitutionally-permitted act available to a congress that wants to give a president the boot.
Correct. For impeachment proceedings to begin, a high crime(s) or misdemeanor(s) must be cited (or treason or bribery). For those wishing to impeach, it will be wise to make a credible case. But ultimately, impeachment is a political act. If the will to impeach develops in congress, it will happen.
Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) for obstruction of justice. Had Nixon not resigned, his articles of impeachment would have included the obstruction of justice charge. If Trump is impeached, it is likely that obstruction of justice will be the charge or included in the list of charges.
Is obstruction of justice a credible enough charge to move impeachment proceedings along? Past history indicates it is. Is it adequate to obtain a conviction (majority vote by the Senate)? It is if the political will exists to give Trump the boot.
Last edited:
They have. But none of them have been named and deployed by Congress. The Constitution makes quite clear that one branch of government creates the laws, another branch enforces the laws, and a third branch adjudicates the constitutionally of the laws.
The various laws created by the Legislative branch have permited or instructed the Attorney General of the Executive branch, not Congress itself, to select and deploy an independent prosecutor.
OK. I get your point. Congress passes laws. The executive branch enforces them.
That said, Congress also has the power to investigate, as is demonstrated right now by the various congressional investigations that are underway.