Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Monday, April 18, 2016

DC threatens to impeach Trump

Your college educated, better looking, six-figure salaried overlords in Washington DC have a message for you in-bred, mouth-breathing Trump voters: It just does not matter. Even if you get through the land mines and the moat in Cleveland and get him nominated -- even if you

That is how big a threat Trump voters are to their pampered way of life in Versailles DC.



From Politico:
“Impeachment” is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress. From the right, Washington attorney Bruce Fein puts the odds at 50/50 that a President Trump commits impeachable offenses as president. Liberal Florida Rep. Alan Grayson says Trump’s insistence on building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, if concrete was poured despite Congress’s opposition, could lead down a path toward impeachment. Even the mainstream Republican head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently tossed out the I-word when discussing the civilian backlash if Trump’s trade war with China led to higher prices on everyday items sold at WalMart and Target. On his radio show last month, Rush Limbaugh even put a very brisk timeline on it: “They’ll be talking impeachment on day two, after the first Trump executive order,” he said.
It’s not unusual for controversial presidents to be shadowed by talk of impeachment, once they’ve been in office long enough to make people mad. But before he’s elected? Before he’s a nominee?
Constitutional experts of all political stripes say it’s surprising for impeachment talk to bubble up this early—but then Trump has been throwing around some surprising ideas for a leading candidate, calling the Geneva Conventions a “problem” and pitching policies that many see as violating international law. “What he’s stated in my judgment would be clearly impeachable offenses,” said Fein, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official who worked on the Bill Clinton impeachment effort. Likewise, Yale Law School lecturer and military justice expert Eugene Fidell offered a similar prediction for Trump from the left. “He’s certainly said things, which if followed through on, would constitute high crimes and misdemeanors,” Fidell said. And doubtless many of Trump’s foes would like to see him impeached just on principle — the quickest way to broom out a leader who horrifies the inclusive sensibilities of Democrats, and has blown apart the Republican Party he’s nominally part of.
This is not about Trump, this is about Trump voters.

Making America Great Again is the last thing DC wants. DC is living in its gilded age. Seven of the 10 richest counties in America surround the nation's capital. The little foxes running the federal government love to cite Reagan because he is dead and poses no threat to them, but his voters do and so they scorn them as angry white men. DC -- conservatives as well as liberals -- scorned the Tea Party. And really, they had not much use for Newt Gingrich when he overturned the apple cart and flipped the House Republican for the first time in 40 years.

So now you have this dreck about impeachment. It's a threat. But it comes from paper tigers.

21 comments:

  1. Don - When you wrote Capito, McKinley and Jenkins in support of Trump, what were their replies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Email me at DonSurber@GMail.com and I will answer your question.

      Delete
  2. Interesting. Obama has committed numerous impeachable offenses, yet no one in the Demopublican and Republicrat parties is talking about impeaching him.

    This is what a banana republic looks like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are Obama's impeachable offenses? Specifics please.

      Delete
    2. Multiple executive orders that clearly violated the separation of powers in our Constitution. Jesus God, man, one of them is up before the Supremos today. Pull your head outta your ass...

      Delete
    3. The immigration issue before the Supreme Court has major legal ramifications and the Court is currently split. Even so, numerous legal scholars - and you are not one of them - have declared that no matter where the final decision rests, the action which is being debated is not one without legal precedence and not one which - if Obama's executive order is struck down - grounds for impeachment.
      Even Surber's favorite writer, Charles Krauthammer, wrote two years back that what Obama was doing was impeachable but all Charles was doing was stirring up click-throughs. You can borrow Teapartydoc's pliers to pull your head out now.

      Delete
    4. So you are telling us the Constitution no longer means what it says because a group of "Constitutional scholars" say otherwise? That the Legislative branch no longer makes the laws, but the Executive branch does? Really? Perhaps you can tell us the exact date when the Constitution was rewritten.

      Your "reasoning" makes one wonder what would happen to Newton's Law of Gravity if these same "scholars" took a dislike to it.

      Delete
    5. No. What I am saying is that what is being debated before the Supreme Court -- though an argument about the reach of the President's Constitutional power -- it is not a matter which is grounds for impeachment if the SC rules not in favor of the Prez.

      Delete
    6. Even Surber agrees with me.
      "I am at a loss to find one unconstitutional thing the little Marxist [Obama] has done." - Surber, March 31, 2016.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous...haha, you coward, typical lib...the thing I find most pathetic about you is the reality that if the Court rules against Soetero, you'll cry racism. You suck.

      Delete
    8. @Anonymous: The grounds for impeachment are what Congress says they are. A decision by Congress to impeach that results in the president's removal from office would NEVER be reviewed by the SCOTUS as to its legality or Constitutionality. It's a totally political matter that even, or should I say ESPECIALLY, the Roberts Court wouldn't go near with a 10 mile pole. The justices just wouldn't get involved in an issue that would bring the wrath of the entire country down on them, to the point where they could find themselves Constitutionally amended out of a job.

      Delete
    9. And if Congress tries to impeach Obama on issues argued before the Supreme Court, then Congress would show itself to be who they already are - a large collection of fools. Face it, if members of Congress truly believe Obama deserved impeachment, then the process would have/should have began a long time ago.
      "I am at a loss to find one unconstitutional thing the little Marxist [Obama] has done." - Surber, March 31, 2016.

      Delete
  3. So, basically they have already conceded the election to Trump? And Republicans talking of impeaching Trump? After seven years of Barack Hussein O - something or other's - multiple abuses and overreaches haven't generated any talk of impeachment? Before Trump even takes office he's being threatened with impeachment? Beam me up, Scotty! This place is getting too weird for me. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha! Shades of Jim Traficant! Beam me up, Mr. Speaker. Those were the days...

      Delete
    2. My thoughts. To be impeached you have to be elected.

      - Mikey NTH

      Delete
  4. For Obama's impeachable offenses look up the articles of impeachment that were to have been brought up against Nixon. Obama has done the same or worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Articles on Nixon prove that Obama has done things that fall within the prevue of impeachment? You sir .... are hilarious.

      Delete
  5. One of Trump's first actions after taking office next January should be to void 99.99% of the EO.s issued by Obama, starting with the ones that restricted the individual rights of all Americans. He should also cancel some of the EO.s that Obama issued with the intent to hurt the economy. Remove those constraints and the business community will be happy. But don't do it all at once; cancel the anti-business EO.s a few at a time and thereby give pause to the Republicans with business interests who might jump at the opportunity to impeach. Make the NeverTrumps worry about killing the goose that's laying the golden eggs (and improving the lives of middle America while doing so).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fast & Furious. Using executive departments to intentionally break federal laws with the intent of seeing how many innocents can be killed in order to justify a party policy.

    So who defines "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Clearly, establishing grounds for impeachment would be easier where an officeholder has been first tried and convicted in a court of law. Problem is that the person tasked with prosecuting crimes at the federal level is the Attorney General who in the Obama administration is little more than the conciglieri for the organized crime syndicate that masquerades as a political party. The A.G. was part and parcel of Fast & Furious, so waiting for a court case is, as we've seen, pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What they don't quite grasp yet is a good portion of them won't be there to impeach anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The person who should be looking at an impeachment 1st day in office is Hillary. Has any Republicans looked at that? Rumor is that the FBI rebuilt the hard drive. If so, they have the 30,000+ "personal" e-mails and know how much foreign interest paid her "yoga lessons". Even without the hard drive, every e-mail that passed through it is on another server somewhere else. No conviction is possible while over 1/3rd of the Senate is held by Democrats and RINOs. But a trial in the Senate would show to the World (that doesn't already know) that the Democrats hold Party before Country, don't care a whit about the country they despise or its laws, and are only interested in Power above all things.

    ReplyDelete