Donald Trump

The Case for Trump's Impeachment is Over-Determined

Where is divided government when you need it?

|

As Peter Suderman eloquently noted yesterday, Donald Trump has destroyed (what was left of) the credibility of the president's office. He is a

Trump
Gage Skidmore via Foter.com

natural authoritarian whose first instinct is to stack the administration with mini-authoritarians who are so attracted to his draconian policies that they are willing to overlook his mental afflictions and pledge fealty. He's got his own little axis of evil going with:

  • Jeff Sessions, who wants to double down on America's worst policy disasters of the 20th Century, the War on Drugs and the War on Immigration, helming the Justice Department
  • Kris Kobach, the notorious immigration warrior who was the brains behind such liberty-busting policies as Arizona's "your paper's please" monstrosity, second in command of the Voting Rights Commission that Trump created through executive order to gin up Pravda-style propaganda against vote fraud, an issue that literally every study has shown exists only in the fevered imagination of Republicans
  • Steve Bannon, the head of the fakest of fake news websites Breitbart and the grand-daddy of the alt-right, as a senior advisor.

This is all serious shit that ought to alarm libertarians. But it is not impeachable. However, Trump has done plenty in his first four months in office that is. In fact, I note in my column at The Week, one does not have to be a Democratic partisan to see that the case for impeachment against Trump is over-determined at this stage. Bill Clinton was (wrongly) impeached for far less.

So what's the difference? Trump has his own party occupying Capitol Hill and Clinton had to contend with Republicans. And Republicans can't (and actually shouldn't) ignore the base that digs this president. Had Democrats won Congress in November and we had divided government, it might have been a different story. Trump would have had to shape up (which does not seem possible for this paranoid man-child consumed with a sense of victimhood) or ship out.

Trump is so out of control because Republicans are in control in Congress, and that's a tragedy for this country.

Go here to read the piece.

NEXT: Is voluntariness of consent to search or seize a question of fact, law or both?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Seek professional help.

    1. Boycott the comments section on Dalmia articles. It’s the only way Reason will learn. Just post once, if you must, then move on.

      Obviously you can do whatever you want, as you should, but clicking refresh a dozen times to talk about how crappy she is just feeds the beast.

      1. Why?

        Let me get this straight – she posts a reasonable article, not on immigration, talking about how all these people screaming for Trump’s removal are . . . overstating the issue at a minimum, or batshit crazy, and we’re supposed to still hate on her?

        You don’t have to support Trump to realize that all the stupid – and he’s done a lot – and horrible – and he’s done a lot, you don’t seek to appoint a guy like Sessions to the AG post unless you’re expecting to ramp up the law-and-order rhetoric – shit he’s done still fall firmly within the remit of his office *and* really isn’t too far removed from what his predecessors have done.

        And yeah, Trump has destroyed any remaining credibility the office of the presidency has had is a bit hyperbole – for some of us it lost its credibility decades ago and for the rest its still (and will always be) a matter of which team has the ball – but that’s not exactly hysteria either. He has been a huge buffoon since election.

        1. Simple: partisans gonna partisan.

          1. Pretty much.

        2. Look, you think anyone reads past the byline ever?

        3. she posts a reasonable article, not on immigration, talking about how all these people screaming for Trump’s removal are . . . overstating the issue at a minimum, or batshit crazy, and we’re supposed to still hate on her?

          Where is this article you speak of?

          The one i read stated the opposite = that the case for Trump’s removal isn’t just plausible, its been satisfied many-times-over.

          Her use of the term “overdetermined” isn’t meant as “overstated” = its meant to say that there is overwhelming and convincing evidence that impeachment is necessary … and in fact, would be a guarateed fact! if not for the godawful GOP congress who is failing to do their duty.

          I think you need to re-read her piece.

          1. As a libertarian, I would say in the vast majority of cases, impeachment is desirable.

            1. the libertarian argument would prefer rule of law not based on your personal-fee-fees

              1. Nope. It depends on the law. Blind allegiance to rule of law is not libertarian. In this case, the power wielded by presidents is illegitimate and anything that reduces such power is desirable.

                1. power wielded by presidents is illegitimate and anything that reduces such power is desirable.

                  I see. so by dint of your “BUT I HAVE FEELINGS”-argument, you have just invalidated the constitution.

                  You are a real wit. I shall remember your name so as to take your ideas very seriously in the future.

                  1. GILMORE HAS SPOKEN.

        4. From Merriam-Webster

          Definition of overdetermined
          1: excessively determined

          2: having more than one determining psychological factor

          1. I’ve only ever seen “overdetermined” used in the mathematical sense.

        5. Did you RTFA?

          ” But it is not impeachable. However, Trump has done plenty in his first four months in office that is. ”

          Dalmia thinks something is an impeachable offense. She’s batshit insane, as usual.

      2. Hey asshole, H&R isn’t your hive. If you want confirmation bias, head on over to Yahoo.

  2. Trump has done plenty in his first four months in office that is.

    Care to detail any evidence of impeachable offenses?

    Bill Clinton was (wrongly) impeached for far less.

    Wrongly? He was impeached for perjury. Has Trump perjured himself in the legal sense?

    1. Both impeachments to date (Johnson and Clinton) were political actions. Obviously, there is no fixed requirement to impeach. The Constitutional language is vague at best.

      Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment considering the above facts.

      1. So this different how?

      2. Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment considering the above facts.

        What facts? The only things listed are appointments that the author does not like. I don’t like them either, but it is hardly impeachable, in of itself, to appoint someone that some people don’t like to a gov’t position.

        were political actions

        Clinton committed perjury.

        Also, where were you when Obo claimed the authority to kill American citizens without trial, and engaged in unauthorized military actions, and de-facto threatened journalists for reporting on the admin. by “investigating” them for espionage? (etc., etc.) Why the double standard?

        1. Lying about “having sex” is not a high crime.

          Really, for a Constitutional constructionist or a dizzy headed originalist where is perjury listed? I want to see that word specifically.

          Again, impeachment is a POLITICAL action. What do you not understand about that?

          1. Lying about sexual harassment while under oath in a sexual harassment trial is a crime. He lost his license over his perjury…I guess that was also political.

            I LOVE the “it was about a blow job!” defense. I’m sure when your kid steals your last Virginia Slim out of your Pokemon clutch, you accept “I was only stealing a tiny bit of paper and plant matter!” as a perfectly valid excuse.

          2. It says ‘high crime and misdemeanors’. Perjury is, in fact, a misdemeanor.

          3. ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’

            ^^ i.e. perjury.

            wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

            The impeachment was initiated by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, against Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, on two charges, one of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.[1] These charges stemmed from Clinton’s extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones. Clinton was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 12, 1999.[2] Two other impeachment articles ? a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse of power ? failed in the House.

            And impeachment is one of the checks and balances congress has on the president. It is a legal action. Try to keep up.

          4. Well, perjury is perjury – doesn’t matter what you’re lying about.

            1. Unless you’re James Clapper. Then it’s the least untruthful answer so it’s ok.

            2. And high crimes are, well, crimes done while high.

              1. Which are therefore subject to mandatory minimums, per Jeff Sessions.

          5. Lying under oath is. It doesn’t matter WHAT he lied about under oath. He lied under oath. An action, by the way, that lost him the ability to practice law for a decade as he was disbarred.

      3. The constitution says ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ nothing listed above is a crime.

        Johnson violated a law (that was later overturned by the court) and Clinton lied under oath. Those are both crimes.

        Not liking Trump’s cabinet does not mean any crime has been committed

        1. Trump attempted to impede an FBI investigation of himself and then fired the FBI chief for refusing to end that investigation.

          That is impeachable. But the GOP won’t impeach him since he is their party leader.

          1. we don’t know that he impeded a damn thing. We know that someone read a memo that Comey allegedly wrote to a reporter at the NYT.

          2. None of that has been proven, yet. Anonymous sources is not evidence. That may be the case, but right now it’s just hearsay

            1. No criminal intent. Wipe the servers, with a cloth, plead the 5th, and move on.

          3. He fired the FBI Chief for cause — he was an inept buffoon who has a serious hankering for power. He didn’t derail anything or impede anything, per the FBI.

            That is impeachable.

            Nothing? Sure. If Congress says so.

            The country would, righly, view it as a coup d’?tat. Which it undoubtedly would be.

          4. Do you have any proof of this, or are you just listening to hearsay? I mean, I heard that you raped 3 goats on the way to the office this morning, so I guess you need to be in jail for bestiality.

            When there is an actual piece of evidence, I’ll agree that he should be impeached. But so far it’s been nothing but moonbeams.

            1. Look at this. So called libertarians defending a sitting president. Downright pathetic.

              1. Um…rule of law figures in there.

      4. Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment considering the above facts.

        Sure, but if I view the above facts in light of bad faith then Trump isn’t guilty of anything.

        And I don’t mean that to say I think Trump should get off specifically in that I don’t exactly consider lying about having sex to be a high crime/impeachable offense.

        Impeaching every President for every lie is going to be more politically chaotic than anything Trump himself could induce. Especially if, from a legal/libertarian standpoint, you can’t point to specific victims or consequences.

      5. “Trump has done plenty to warrant impeachment considering the above facts.”

        Like? I’m no fan of the guy, but you can’t just come make a general statement like that without something substantial. It’s like me asking if you’ve stopped molesting your kid.

      6. False. Johnson was impeached for violating the Tenure of Office Act. Now, he may not have actually violated the Act and the Act may not have actually been Constitutional, but that’s another matter.

      7. Impeachment is always a political action. That’s why the Congress does it rather than the courts and why there’s such a high bar to conviction.

    2. Perjury only in the matter of a sexual relation that was tangential to a side issue to a corner case with regard to an actual investigation.

      Imagine a several year murder investigation that caught the neighbor of a person of interest not sorting their garbage in the recycle bin. It’s sort of like that.

      1. Well, really it’s more like he was on trial for sexual harassment, and the prosecutor was establishing a pattern of abusive behavior, which Clinton perjured himself on by lying about in order to conceal said pattern of abusive behavior.

        So, no, it’s not really how you characterize it at all.

      2. Perjury only in the matter of a sexual relation that was tangential to a side issue to a corner case with regard to an actual investigation.

        So, it’s not perjury if you don’t think it’s important.

        OK.

        Guess they should change how they swear in people in legal proceedings to “Do you promise to tell the truth if you believe it to be relevant?”

        1. Different rules apply to your betters.

  3. Shikha is worse than DildO

  4. all yours crusty

  5. Does anybody know how Kmele did in his debate last night? I’m assuming there will be a new Fifth Column soon but I’m going to be in the middle of the woods all weekend.

    1. “In the middle of the woods all weekend” is a pretty good masturbation euphemism.

      1. I’m gonna be in New York. I hope to God I don’t run into Hillary Clinton.

        1. Carry bear spray for the bears and a 45-70 for Clinton

          1. Like that’d do more than piss Clinton off. Holy water would be a better bet. On the plus side, as long as you steer clear of certain lonely hills whose tops are crowned with lightning-struck rings of ancient, cyclopean stonework upon which Indians used to perform unclean rites, you probably won’t run into her.

            1. “Signs of a Clinton in the area: shredded documents, discarded servers, bickering campaign staff, Huma tracks”

              1. …dogs bristling fearfully for no apparent reason, mysterious carvings in green soapstone whose shapes fill the viewer with unnameable dread, a blood-red comet in the sky, voices in the darkness whispering “ZUUL…”

                1. You guys write fantasy fiction in real life, don’t you?

                  1. You’re looking at it.

                  2. You guys write fantasy fiction in real life, don’t you?

                    When you’re an unrepentant partisan, fantasy is reality. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are a few birthers left in this joint. Sad!

                2. “….and the tortured death wails of the inevitability of history….”

    2. Kmele won handily, raising his vote from something like 55% to 70%. Lawrence Ross also gained in votes, from 8% to 11%.

      I thought he started off kinda weak, but his arguments came together and he finished strong.

      1. Actually, the vote totals are still up at http://sohovote.com/

        Kmele went from 48% to 75%.

        1. Good for him. Knew he would win.

        2. 48% to 75%.

          Did that outdo Welch’s #s? Welch had been preening that he had the most decisive victory in the history of …soho forum debate-events or something.

          1. I was going to add that I’m pretty sure that bests Welch’s performance, but Welch seems to be super-serial about this competition, so I won’t guess. I’m sure he’ll announce it on the podcast.

            1. They’ll definitely bicker about who did better.

  6. Nice piece, Shikha, but I really hate impeachments. One a century is too many. However, it’s true that Trump is uniquely awful. Trump is simply the culmination of the Republican cult of irresponsibility that first blossomed under Newt Gingrich and led to the grotesque impeachment of Bad Boy Billie in the first place. These are sad times.

    1. Anal Van-Man really hates impeachments, Shikha, so it’s not happening.

      1. Anal Van-Man

        Anal! Har har! Funny every time!

    2. Shikha needs mental help.

      “However, Trump has done plenty in his first four months in office that is.”
      What are those again? You left those out of the article. Crimes mind you not TDS.

      “Bill Clinton was (wrongly) impeached for far less.”
      Lying under oath is a crime.

      I always knew Shikha is not a Libertarian. What Libertarian does not support rule of law.

      1. What Libertarian does not support rule of law.

        That depends on the law, doesn’t it?

        1. Any law that isn’t a near-exact approximation of “don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff” is one i’m leery of.

        2. I think he’s using rule of law as a guiding principle, not anything that specific.

      2. Shikha needs mental help.

        Finally, an expert on delusional paranoia!

      3. The Constitution is not a remotely libertarian document and wasn’t written to be so. Plenty of libertarians place other moral precepts above Constitutionality.

    3. Reason Magazine: so much better than its commenters.

      1. That’s why so many fled this place for their own safe place.

      2. Well, at least one of them, anyway. ^

      3. I think Anal Van-man just insulted himself. Respect.

        1. Anal! Hahahaha! Damn, who said all the cleverest “libertarians” left this place?

          1. +1 Giant Ratfucker of Sumatra

  7. Bill Clinton faced impeachment over things that were known to happen.
    Richard Nixon was going to be impeached over things that were known to happen.
    Thus far, we have a collection of “people familiar with the issue” or “senior officials” with who-knows-what agendas or, as the NYT/Comey ‘memo’ incident showed, reporters having something read to them by yet another anonymous source.

    Maybe it’s all fire but, at some point, there has to be a human being going on the record, preferably with some documentation to back him/her up.

    1. Isn’t that where all of this is going?

      1. is it? Thus far, it has sounded very Alice-like: sentence first, trial later.

      2. Maybe, but with Nixon we had copies of the actual Pentagon papers, plus his tapes save for the 18 minutes or whatever that was missing, and Mark Felts met face-to-face with Woodward and Bernstein. So far, the best that they’ve been able to come up with for Russian interference is a vague intel report that doesn’t actually accuse the Russian government of anything, a goofy piss dossier that no one took seriously except for Buzzfeed. For obstruction, all the leakers supposedly have provided is reading stuff over the phone to reporters, for an incident that Comey and his deputies apparently decided wasn’t obvious enough to warrant notification.

        Hell, Wikileaks provided more with the DNC email leak than the FBI leakers have done.

        1. It’s absolutely astonishing to me that, in the age of Wikileaks and electronic everything, that we have not yet seen a single document.

      3. I don’t know. Get back to me when we have solid evidence instead of wishful thinking.

  8. This is all serious shit that ought to alarm libertarians.

    The “serious shit” that should “alarm libertarians” is that left-wing statist hacks and university educated propagandists like Shikha Dalmia can successfully masquerade as libertarians.

    1. Thank You.

      They would have an still would prefer Hilary over Trump, who is far less Libertarian. We would have a 5-4 majority now to overturn Citizens United and Heller. Please tell me in what universe that is a good thing.

      1. Trump has two accomplishments that will be a legacy for the foreseeable future:

        1. He kept the cunt* out of the Executive Mansion, for which we should all be grateful.

        2. He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the USSC.

        Now if we can just one more decent**Justice and any amount of deregulation before he is impeached or smoked, I’ll be happy with him in the balance, no matter how “grotesque” or “unfit for the office” he may be.

        *I employ this offensive word not as an insult to women, just to the abomination who happens to be a woman, as far as we know…

        **aka constitutionalist/ respecter of original intent and natural law

    2. Don’t forget Chapman

    3. She’s not wrong about Sessions but the Bannon comment has a whiff of orthodoxy to it. Breitbart may be a sensationalistic at times but “fakest of fake news” comes across as a cocktail-party echo-chamber kind of comment.

      1. ^ This.

        Breitbart may be highly biased, but calling them “fake news,” let alone “fakest of fake news,” is just parroting silly talking points. If Breitbart is “fake news,” then so is the Washington Post.

        1. If Breitbart is “fake news,” then so is the Washington Post.

          And there we have it. Moral equivalency at its crudest. Why won’t anyone take “libertarians” seriously?

          1. *

  9. No idea what Trump’s “axis of evil” has to do with any of this, other than being “stuff the author doesn’t like”.

    1. Axis of evil was the name for my balls in college.

    2. Also, so tired of that phrase….

  10. So what has Trump *actually* done? I mean serious actual things, not just words or tweets?

    I could go down the laundry list of things Obama did that no one seemed to care about. I find it so amusing that all my left friends have the Spicer garden meme thing, but where the hell were you when Obama’s NSA was spying on Americans.

    1. Obama had a fucking list of American citizens that could be assassinated without due process. He DID assassinate an American citizen without due process outside a war zone who posed no imminent threat to America. How the fuck is that not the most terrifying thing that a president has done in the last few decades?

      1. And bragged about it after the fact, telling aides ‘I’m really good at killing people.’

        1. I forgot about the kill-list. That is terrifying.

          And bragged about it after the fact, telling aides ‘I’m really good at killing people.’

          This was particularly bad as well. Imagine if anyone with an R next to their name, and especially Trump, was quoted as saying this on video…

            1. Wow that woman is more evil and heartless than Trump.

              I always put it this way:

              Trump is the egotistical but blundering super villain who’s so incompetent none of his evil plans ever work.
              Hillary is the super villain sitting in an arm chair in the shadows stroking a cat, pulling all the strings from behind the scene to accomplish her evil plans.

    2. Where were they when Obama signed the NDAA with the indefinite detention provision? That has to be the single most unconstitutional provision I’ve ever seen pass.

    3. We need to impeach him to find out. The special prosecutor has three and half years to find something.

    4. I don’t know that Trump has done anything even vaguely worth impeachment, much less in a provable way. But, I have to admit, President Pence sounds better every day …

      1. With a Nikki Haley VP? How funny would that be if Republicans got not only the first woman VP, but the first non-white woman VP.

        Fun fact: We had a Native American Vice President, Charles Curtis. He was raised by his grandmother on a reservation and his first language was Kaw. He basically advocated for the elimination of reservations and the assimilation of Native Americans into mainstream American society though, so he isn’t fondly remembered by today’s progressives.

    5. Or handing out weaponry to Mexican Drug Lords?

  11. America’s worst policy disasters of the 20th Century, the War on Drugs and the War on Immigration,

    This is one of those rare sentences that make quite probably makes people dumber for having read it. Sentences that Shikha seems to have a knack for generating.

    Buck v. Bell? Korematsu v. US? Nope. ELSHIKH V. TRUMP

    1. Badly decided court cases are technically not policy.

      The war on drugs IS indeed one of the 20th (and now 21st) centuries greatest US policy disasters

      1. Badly decided court cases are technically not policy.

        States had laws legally sterilizing people. *SCOTUS* upheld those laws as Constitutional. I don’t know what your definition of a policy is…

        There is no war on immigration. If there is, it’s in no way comparable to the War on Drugs. The only way the War on Drugs and the “War on Immigration” to be *the* worst policy disasters is if you include shitty twice- and thrice- removed metadata *for* the policy but *against* other policies.

        The same test we used to determine people to be imbeciles in need of sterilization were some of the same tests we used to keep Jews and Western Europeans from fleeing the Nazis. World War? War on imbeciles? War on Jews? Shikha’s answer is an emphatic, “No! War on Immigration.”

        War on Japan? War on Japanese-born Americans (citizens)? War on habeas corpus? “No! War on Immigration.”

        I don’t dispute the War on Drugs and it being a bad policy. However, again, to acontextually frame it as categorically *the worst* is idiotic. Lots and lots of people up for drug offences are also on the hook for violence, theft, etc. Proportionally, few/none of the people in any of the US’s other policy blunders were even guilty of anything and were still sterilized, locked up, marched to their deaths, etc.

        I mean, she might as well just declare Trump to be winning the centuries long War on Equality vis a vis the War on Women. It’s just dumb.

    2. In terms of their perversions of American principles, Buck v Bell and Korematsu v US should be considered worse, I agree.

      But in terms of outcomes, the War on Drugs is far worse.

      After all, Buck v Bell and Korematsu v US only affected a relatively small number of people. The War on Drugs affects just about everyone in one way or another.

      1. Yep, not even close.

      2. The War on Drugs affects just about everyone in one way or another.

        But not directly as policy or as explicit policy. As far as anyone knows, the government isn’t (directly) setting drug prices and hypnotically inducing inner-city black youths to shoot each other and poor white hicks to shoot themselves full of heroine. And if they are doing so, the latter strikes more at the heart of Buck v. Bell (and/or Brown v. BOE) than it does the War on Drugs.

        At the Nuremberg trials after World War II, Nazi doctors explicitly cited Holmes’s opinion in Buck v. Bell as part of their defense. Literally as bad as Hitler.

        The only way you arrive definitively at WOD as *the* worst is if you elevate drugs animistically, sanctimoniously, similarly illogically. Habeas corpus (for some races) is just abstract legal mumbo-jumbo as long as we’re free to drink and smoke pot.

        1. The war on poverty and the welfare-entitlement complex is literally bankrupting the country, but sure, we can claim that the war on drugs and immigration are worse.

    1. Nothing is sadder — and yet oddly amusing — than a goober-clan of partisan whiners.

  12. This is all serious shit that ought to alarm libertarians. But it is not impeachable. However, Trump has done plenty in his first four months in office that is

    but not a single one mentioned

    Serious shit indeed

    Bill Clinton was (wrongly) impeached

    Lying to federal investigators is a crime, last i checked.

    Dalmia is a boat anchor on the reputation of this magazine.

    1. Just Shikha? I find it hard to call Reason a libertarian publication anymore. They just provide a reheated version of the major media narrative. They don’t usually even offer a different perspective

      1. “They just provide a reheated version of the major media narrative.”

        You mean like Gillespie’s article from last night?

        1. Shut up, shut up you, you, you dentist Democrat!

        2. I have not read it. Does the dumb fuck invoke his stupid fucking libertarian moment meme?

        3. Stopped clock defense being an awesome all purpose rebuttal.

          1. And your defense also rings rather hollow in light of your metric for comparing Buck V. Bell and Korematsu to the War on Drugs just a few lines above here. One where you weight the numbers affected vs the specific effects.

            Gillespie’s moment of clarity last night drowning in a sea of inanity.

    2. Technically, The Week.

      She doesn’t even seem to get much published in the magazine any more.

      1. Technically, The Week.

        the fact she has a job-title here as a “Senior Analyst” is more than sufficient to stain the magazine. That they let her link to the drek she publishes elsewhere is implicit endorsement.

        1. Ye may judge as ye please.

          I certainly wouldn’t mind if Gillespie revoked her blogging privileges.

  13. Does anyone know a good libertarian web site? Asking for a friend.

    1. Not this one.

      Its all TDS insanity with the Reason writing staff.

      1. LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!

      2. …and yet you’re here pretty much everyday.

    2. Cato.org? Wearelibertarians.com? pornhu….. errr…. Nope… sorry, can’t help ya.

      1. Markets? will make one! And we’d have plenty already if it weren’t for Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Wimins, Lena Dunham, teachers, unions, cops, stupid speed limits reality.

  14. The American people wanted it. Now they got it. Anyone that listened to the primary debates should have known what they were getting in Trump or Clinton for that matter. American citizens have become so partisan on both sides that they would vote for a narcissistic authoritarian Democrat (Trump) as a Republican President or a known rapist pedophile as a Democrat President. Sorry they aren’t partisan they are just plain ignorant.

    1. There’s a justice in the world. We’re seeing it now.

  15. How come ‘left libertarians’ all just say the exact same thing as progressives? Maybe the ‘libertarian’ shtick is just a ruse

    1. Sargon does not say what the TDS shills here say and he is left libertarian (I guess)

  16. So if Trump is impeached:

    1. The Resistance(TM)-will have to get a life, or I guess they could turn on Pence, since he too was illegitimately elected in their opinion.

    2. The Dems will have to work a lot harder to win back the house/senate in the 2018 midterms.

    3. Trump’s followers will be even more pissed off than they were in 2016.

    Impeachment is therefore not at all in the Dems’ interest, they want to keep Trump were he is until they can slaughter him and his party. When they return to power, it will be even worse than it is now for fans of small government.

    1. I have been saying this for several days now. The Democrats really don’t want Trump impeached at all.

      1. Looking at the 8th dimensional chessboard, I wonder if this isn’t/wasn’t some manner of political polling. The popular will or political fervor is there. If Rosenstein/Mueller submerge the investigation until 2018/2019 and then executed a Clinton-style ‘Impeached in Office’ maneuver… it could (setting should aside) happen.

        I’m not officially donning my foil hat to suggest that Rosenstein and/or Mueller are doing or going to do or even conceptualizing this. But if you’d told me, when Bush appointed Comey AG or when Obama appointed him director, that he’d categorically clear a POTUS candidate of prima facia guilt a month before the election I’d have thought you were crazy.

        I did and still very much do agree with what you’re saying but a part of me wonders is if this isn’t how The Presidency is or was meant to die (if only a little bit).

        1. Note: I don’t play much 8th dimensional chess, so I could be completely wrong about the rules.

      2. The Democrats really don’t want Trump impeached at all.

        Of course not. They just want everyone in the media shrieking about it 24/7 in order to create the impression that Democrats serve some valued purpose.

      3. The lefties want to slow down how much of the fed are being rolled back or will be rolled back.

      4. The narrative Team Blue wants is that Trump should and would have been impeached if not for Team Red’s love of Party over Country. An actually successful impeachment would throw a monkey wrench into that narrative.

        A plausible but narrowly failing motion for impeachment would be the ideal thing.

        1. S=C, that sounds about right.

    2. 4. The power to impeach will have been expanded by somewhere between the absolute number of 1 and the relative number of 33%.

      If HRC runs/wins 2020, I expect her to be impeached retroactively to January 21, 2009 if not further.

    3. They’ll go with the electrocuting gays meme that Pence laughs about. He thinks that stuff is pretty funny, apparently.

  17. Any fair assessment of Trump and his Axis of Evil must include reference to the fault of #Resistance. Trump’s opponents like Dalmia certainly should have realized that uncompromising opposition to him serves no purpose but to provoke him to excesses. It’s just like inviting Milo Whatshisname to speak at your college!

    1. Well referenced and slung, sir.

  18. anybody want to read the piece? I’ll enter you in a drawing to win $3 if you do.

    1. Pass…SD:DR

  19. Hey, do any of you know of one non-Trump voter who now supports him? I know of several Trump voters that are too embarrassed to admit they voted for him. Anyone think that Trump could beat Hillary if there was a re-election tomorrow?

    1. As of last month, polls show he would still win, and with the popular vote. Jill and Gary picked up a percent or two, but Hillary and Trump both lost points. I think it was like 43% Trump/41% Hillary.

    2. Hey, do any of you know of one non-Trump voter who now supports him?

      Define supports and ‘non-Trump voter’. I didn’t vote for him, am thoroughly entertained by the bull in the china shop antics, and do not believe him to be guilty of anything (so far).

      If there was a re-election tomorrow, we’d have two special counsels, one for the Russia investigation and one for the email server. I’m sure the shredding/dissection/post mortem of The Clinton Foundation would be crucial in both investigations.

  20. “… the head of the fakest of fake news websites…”

    Uh… Ariana Huffington would like to have a word with you…

  21. War on Immigration? Of course there is a War on Immigration. Do you want moar swamp people moving to Washington DC getting everything all swampy? Of coarse you don’t.

  22. For an article titled, “The Case for Trump’s Impeachment is Over-Determined”, I cannot find any evidence to support the claim within the body of the article. Do I need a new decoder ring?

  23. The article is sheer stupidity – as the comments above say, not a single real shred of evidence of a crime. Just rumor, hearsay, and libel.

    The other stupid assumption is that if somehow a Libertarian was ever elected President, he wouldn’t face similar attacks from the Left and their journalist sycophants. They would go after a real libertarian with hammer and tongs just as viciously as they are going after Trump.

    1. More viciously, as they would be even less embedded in the grinding gears of the status quo than Trump.

  24. Who could have predicted that a thin-skinned, vindictive, malignant narcissistic realty-show star with no experience in government, no sense of history, no coherent philosophy, no interest in learning, would have, in his first four months in office, such a catastrophic presidency? It’s unbelievable! Nobody saw it coming!

    1. Who could have predicted that a thin-skinned, vindictive, malignant narcissistic Community Organizer star with little experience in government, no sense of history, no coherent philosophy, no interest in learning, would have, in his entire eight years in office, such a catastrophic presidency? It’s unbelievable! Only his phone and pen saw it coming!

  25. All the Shikha-bashing aside, one point that she does bring up that IMO hasn’t received enough scrutiny is the emoluments clause. Is Trump in violation of it by continuing to own his hotels, even if he doesn’t personally manage them anymore? As far as I’ve been able to learn, it really is an unsettled question as to how far the emoluments clause goes, beyond simply accepting outright bribes from foreign leaders. The literal definition of emolument is “a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office.” If a foreign leader visits DC and *just so happens* (wink wink) to stay at the Trump Hotel, even if the payment is only for services rendered alone, would it still constitute an emolument? After all, Trump would have benefitted from that foreign leader’s visit staying at the Trump Hotel instead of some other hotel just because he is president.

    1. Trump’s lease explicitly states that no government employee may hold the title on the old Post Office building. Then again, Obama General Cheeto is above the law.

    2. A reasonably fair-minded article about Trump and the emoluments clause:

      link

    3. one point that she does bring up that IMO hasn’t received enough scrutiny is the emoluments clause. Is Trump in violation of it by continuing to own his hotels, even if he doesn’t personally manage them anymore?

      lol

      didn’t get enough scrutiny? It was the outrage numero uno for at least December and January.

      Her claim =

      Past presidents have satisfied that requirement by divesting or putting their assets in a truly blind trust. Trump refused to do that… He supposedly relinquished the management of his vast global empire to his sons, but continued to hold an ownership stake

      is nonsense. that’s not how the emoluments clause works.

      Shikha’s concept recommends (to quote nat-review) “a broad view of “emoluments” to cover any sort of commerce between any foreign sovereign entity and the Trump Organization, a view so broad that it would hold President Obama to have violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause every time a foreign public library bought a copy of Dreams of My Father.””

      Futher

      “‘the traditional understanding of “emoluments” was limited to salary and other financial benefits attached to the holding of an office, and did not cover outside private business interests.”

      Having your assets held in trust is normal operating procedure for a person in public office.

      1. Oh I know there was some early talk about Trump and emoluments. But, IMO, it still hasn’t received the attention that this issue deserves.

        And I don’t think Shikha is arguing for any particular interpretation of the Emoluments Clause. My point is that it is an unsettled issue, and the issue could use some clarification particularly in how it affects Trump and any apparent conflict of interest. Read the article that I linked. It turns out, after the election, this Kuwaiti group abruptly changed their plans and decided to hold their annual big gala at the Trump hotel in DC rather than some other local hotel. Coincidence? Doubtful. Was this an emolument in disguise? I don’t know.

        Trump gave up management of his hotels, but they are not in a *blind* trust. That’s an important distinction.

        “that’s not how the emoluments clause works.”

        So how does the emoluments clause work? As far as I’ve been able to read, it hasn’t been adjudicated very much, if at all, in the courts.

        1. Trump gave up management of his hotels, but they are not in a *blind* trust. That’s an important distinction.

          not really. my representative has a blind trust. according to the Dallas Morning News it owns the concessions contract at Dallas owned Love Field. but don’t tell her. or Love Field. they’re the only one that don’t know.

        2. it still hasn’t received the attention that this issue deserves.

          there wasn’t *enough* hysteria around it for you? You have a greater appetite than most.

          So how does the emoluments clause work?

          See = Hillary Clinton, when holding the office of Secretary of State, continued to collect hundreds of millions in donations to a Foundation in her name. It didn’t even have any other nominal business-purpose = it was just a money funnel that enriched and empowered her family and associates.

          If you could drive that truck through the Emoluments Clause, Trump’s vast real estate holdings arent even a fucking blip on its radar.

          The way the clause works is that it bars gifts to public employees, and bars them from taking additional income from second-jobs that might have foreign sources.

          The reason it isn’t adjudicated very much is because its relatively clear, and conflicts are generally avoided by the same basic rules that guide federal employment. e.g. assets held in trust, etc.

          Why am i explaining this to you when you can figure this out for yourself? You’re pretending there’s some confusion when there really isn’t any.

          1. I am not talking about Hillary. Maybe Hillary violated the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know.

            Have we ever had a situation where the president didn’t put his assets in a blind trust, and – in addition – the trustees were members of the president’s own family? I think we are in uncharted territory here. If Hillary had won, would you be satisfied by an answer from her of “oh, I am not going to give up ownership of the foundation, I will just let Chelsea run it and trust that she does a good job, and don’t worry about any conflicts of interest, you can trust me”? The whole point of the emoluments clause, I presume, is to avoid conflicts of interest. Yes you can go too far, no I don’t think every sale of Obama’s book constituted an emolument, but consider what the Kuwaiti group did, as I linked above. Is that at least not a little bit suspicious to you?

            1. I think we are in uncharted territory here.

              Only because you seem to enter every question knowing absolutely fucking nothing and applying idiotic, sweeping assumptions.

              The whole point of the emoluments clause, I presume, is to avoid conflicts of interest.

              Its specifically to bar “gifts”. Conflict of interest is a hugely expansive concept which involves far more than that shitty little clause.

              consider what the Kuwaiti group did

              Market-transactions aren’t gifts.

              I’m stopping here Jeff, because the more you try this reductio-ad-ignorantium “BUT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT LAWS MEAN” argument, the less interesting it gets.

              you and CMW are seriously the most boringly-stupid contrarians i’ve ever met

              1. you seem to enter every question knowing absolutely fucking nothing and applying idiotic, sweeping assumptions.

                Is chemjeff Bo?

                1. I think Jeff predated bo. but you’re right that its a similar M.O.

                  1. I think Jeff predated bo. but you’re right that its a similar M.O.

                    Good lord, and now the tiresome, hackneyed conspiracy theories begin, again. Everything new is old in the goober-clan of Hit & Run “libertarians.”

              2. “Its specifically to bar “gifts”. Conflict of interest is a hugely expansive concept which involves far more than that shitty little clause.”

                Why does it bar gifts? Because the gifts can be tools to influence the recipient’s decision-making. Hence creating a potential conflict of interest. Surely you can see that. Of course the emoluments clause is not the only legal text having any bearing on conflicts of interest. But the whole point of having that clause is to try to avoid a conflict of interest created by a decision-maker having accepted gifts from foreign powers. You know that, but you are reducing the argument to your little narrow framing of the issue.

                “Market-transactions aren’t gifts.”

                No, not necessarily. But bribes have often been disguised as gifts for a long time now. Surely you are aware of this.

                I’m disappointed that you can’t step outside of your narrow framing of the issue and at least try to approach how others perceive the issue.

                1. at least try to approach how others perceive the issue.

                  I did, and i think it requires incredible stupidity to maintain that sort of point of view in light of all the other information available.

                  Even the idea that someone already-a-billionaire can be “bribed” by….
                  ….someone visiting a single one of his many, already-successful hotels?

                  …requires a level of retardation that would be difficult to attain, short of a lifetime of eating paint chips.

                  1. No you didn’t. You arrogantly dismissed any criticism of your point of view from the get-go. Anyone who disagrees with you is retarded, stupid beyond words, etc., etc. I’m pretty sure I know what you did. You read my comment and then you thought to yourself, “Oh there goes some LEFTIST IDIOT again prattling on about emoluments”, and then you went directly into argumentative opposition mode. I mentioned that the issue hadn’t been settled in the courts. I mentioned that the current situation is different than one we have faced previously. And instead of discussing what I brought up, you went immediately to “renting a hotel room isn’t a bribe, you idiot!!!!!” when I never claimed it was. That is how I can tell you are still stuck in a tribal mode of thinking and that you see it as your duty to arrogantly dismiss the incompetent claims of the other tribe.

                    1. I can tell you are still stuck in a tribal mode of thinking

                      Yes, its *everyone else* that’s the partisan hack desperately looking for the flimsiest thread to hang their impeachment desires on.

                      Project harder, Jeff. You must be eating paint chips with a ladle.

                    2. Oh I see, so you must have missed my comments earlier where I specifically said that it’s kinda stupid to be thinking about impeachment right now? Here, let me helpfully provide the link to you. You know, maybe someone who brings up a concern isn’t automatically some leftist who must be slapped down.

                    3. maybe someone who brings up a concern isn’t automatically some leftist who must be slapped down.

                      No one cares about your concerns. Arguing that the emoluments clause is some expansive and all-encompassing conflict-of-interest legal-loophole is stupid. Stupid arguments get slapped down.

                      stop making stupid arguments.

                    4. Shorter Gilmore: If you disagree with my interpretation, then you are stupid. And, probably a leftist pining for impeachment.

                    5. If you disagree with my interpretation, then you are stupid.

                      If you think someone already a Billionaire faces any genuine ‘conflict of interest’ because – MAYBE – some rich foreigners might patronize one of his many hotels? yes, i think you’re more than an idiot. You’re trying to expand a tiny clause in the constitution intended to bar direct-gifts to public-officials and claim its a rational basis to treat this current president as somehow hopelessly ethically compromised.

                      And please, spare me your “i’m just asking questions here” nonsense. as though i haven’t heard you pitch the same soppy horseshit a million times before.

              3. Only because you seem to enter every question knowing absolutely fucking nothing and applying idiotic, sweeping assumptions…you and CMW are seriously the most boringly-stupid contrarians i’ve ever met

                Hi Gleemore. Do you know when you are losing? It’s when you employ ad hominem attacks instead of reason. Don’t ever change!

                1. Note that Gilmore didn’t answer my Hillary hypothetical. We both know that Gilmore would never tolerate the behavior of Trump had it been Hillary doing the same thing with respect to her foundation, had she won.

                  1. Gleemore is principled! Trump, Obama, Hillary…all the same to a principled partisan “libertarian.”

                  2. Note that Gilmore didn’t answer my Hillary hypothetical.

                    Your hypothetical equates a public 501c3 to a private business. Nobody in their right mind should waste time addressing it.

                2. Do you know when you are losing? It’s when you employ ad hominem attacks instead of reason. Don’t ever change!

                  Says the guy who literally does nothing other than lob half-assed insults at people.

        3. And I don’t think Shikha is arguing for any particular interpretation of the Emoluments Clause.

          Trump entered the Oval Office in open violation of conflict of interest guidelines and the foreign emoluments clause of the Constitution

          Okay.

          Trump gave up management of his hotels, but they are not in a *blind* trust. That’s an important distinction.

          But Trump would know exactly what’s in the *blind* trust, so obviously all his companies must be sold. This is how you get a government composed entirely of the managerial class.

          1. This is how you get a government composed entirely of the managerial class.

            Or “community activists”.

          2. “But Trump would know exactly what’s in the *blind* trust, so obviously all his companies must be sold.”

            That is going too far, I think. Sure, selling all of his hotels would eliminate the conflict of interest, but I don’t think that’s the only way. A blind trust would be a reasonable substitute at least to me, anyway. With a genuine blind trust, Trump actually *wouldn’t* know what was in the blind trust, because the trustee would have the power to buy or sell individual assets independent of Trump’s influence.

            “This is how you get a government composed entirely of the managerial class.”

            And? Is this supposed to be an epithet?

            1. A blind trust would be a reasonable substitute

              All the other presidents employed blind trusts when necessary, and all the other presidents were losers! Trump is an outsider, a winner, and he is going to drain the swamp!
              USA!
              USA!
              USA!

              1. Actually, Obama did not use a blind trust for his assets.

                1. He was po’. He didn’t need one. He also provided his tax returns. Trump…nope. Not that he has anything to hide. He’s doing it out of princip—

                  Hahahahaha.

            2. With a genuine blind trust, Trump actually *wouldn’t* know what was in the blind trust, because the trustee would have the power to buy or sell individual assets independent of Trump’s influence.

              So the trustees sell some but not all Trump assets … how the fuck does this change anything? Trump still has the exact same problematic incentives just with a smaller return. And if the emoluments lunatics cared about the size of the return, every single one of them wouldn’t be talking about rented hotel rooms.

              And? Is this supposed to be an epithet?

              If we’re going to do this representative democracy thing, does it strike you as a good idea to make a functionally impossible for people with their own companies to hold elected office?

              1. So the trustees sell some but not all Trump assets … how the fuck does this change anything? Trump still has the exact same problematic incentives just with a smaller return.

                Not really. For instance, if Trump were to, say, recommend to visiting dignitaries that they should stay at the Trump DC hotel because “the rooms are classy” (wink wink), he wouldn’t know if the trustee had, the night before, decided to sell the hotel, and therefore Trump personally gets nothing out of it. And I am just using hotel rooms as a convenient example. In reality I really don’t think Trump cares about a couple of $300 hotel rooms. It’s the bigger events – conventions, large parties, galas, exhibitions, conferences, etc. – that I think are potentially more problematic.

                If we’re going to do this representative democracy thing, does it strike you as a good idea to make a functionally impossible for people with their own companies to hold elected office?

                It’s not functionally impossible, but it is probably harder, that is true. I don’t expect Trump or any one else to take a vow of poverty before running for office. I do expect them to demonstrate to a skeptical public that they aren’t using their office to enrich themselves. And it doesn’t just apply to businesspeople either. I think it is horrible that Congresscritters get to use insider info to get rich on the stock market. That isn’t about owning a business or not.

                1. Me: Jeff, every time you put a dollar on red the house makes a nickel.

                  Jeff: Not really. For instance, if I put a dollar on red and the ball lands on black they’d make a dollar.

                  ____________

                  Motte: I do expect them to demonstrate to a skeptical public that they aren’t using their office to enrich themselves.

                  Bailey: Which means selling the company that’s been in the family for a century.

                  1. Which means selling the company that’s been in the family for a century.

                    It *could* mean selling the business. It would not be required to satisfy my skepticism, however. I would be satisfied if the business was in a blind trust. That is what I’ve said all along. I don’t really think it is necessary for Trump to sell all his hotels. That would be unfair to Trump and to his family. But I would like to see him put his businesses in a blind trust, not just hand them over to his family (which, I think we can both agree, really isn’t an arms-length away from Trump). So it is not some bailey argument. You’re just projecting a false argument onto me.

                    1. You’re just projecting a false argument onto me.

                      AKSHUALLY I’m projecting a better argument onto you. Your current argument — that trustees should sell some of Trump’s property so that, on paper, he doesn’t know which ballroom-rentals are really teeny tiny bribes — is retarded.

        4. Oh I know there was some early talk about Trump and emoluments. But, IMO, it still hasn’t received the attention that this issue deserves.

          The problem is, again, the divisiveness of the issue. I’d say, he’s not guilty on either charge but more culpable wrt emoluments. However, again/similarly, the whole Obama, Clinton, Clinton Foundation arrangement was just as shady as hell too. Like it’s not even in dispute that the Foundation didn’t disclose to the Pres. as agreed *and* that it was explicitly a pay for access arrangement. The only reason nobody cares is because that team lost.

    4. Is Trump in violation of it by continuing to own his hotels, even if he doesn’t personally manage them anymore?

      No.

      That wasn’t even hard.

      1. And you know this how? Extensive case law clearly defining the scope of the emoluments clause?

        1. He knows it because he is a partisan, duh.

        2. Was Obama in violation when his book was sold outside the US?

          Nobody sane would argue yes.

          This is the exact same thing.

          Except Trump has something worth buying.

          Your reading of the Emoluments Clause ensures that we never have a President who ever succeeded at anything in their lives.

          1. Personally I don’t think ordinary commercial transactions, at market rates, should constitute a violation of the emoluments clause. I agree with you, that would be going too far.

            What if the commercial transaction was significantly above market rates? What if some foreign group had bought pallets and pallets of Obama’s books, at 10x the market price? Would that be an emolument?

            What if a group had decided to move all of their convention business to Trump’s hotels, specifically because Trump was elected and the group was trying to curry favor with him? Even if the transactions were all at market rates, is this an emolument, or if not, is it nevertheless something that we should be concerned about?

            1. I don’t much like dealing with hypotheticals.

              Now, what if Trump revealed to Russia the location of the nuclear missiles for one of our closest allies? Would that be bad?

            2. Move them goalposts!

              This is the statement you were defending previously:

              Is Trump in violation of it by continuing to own his hotels, even if he doesn’t personally manage them anymore?

              Continuing to own. Not “accepting overpayments in return for favorable treatment by his public office”.

        3. You’re still claiming not to be a Democrat, right? That’s about as mindless as partisanship gets.

    5. one point that she does bring up that IMO hasn’t received enough scrutiny is the emoluments clause.

      HAHAHA holy fucking shit

      1. The emoluments clause is for suckers, and Trump is a winner!
        MAGA!

      2. Hey, don’t be too hard on Jeff. That chicken is forever in need of plucking.

  26. Impeachment is mostly a dog whistle that creates wild barking from partisans on both sides of the aisle. The number that makes me think “sea-steading” is 84% of Republicans approve of Trump. As a devout nonpartisan, my take on impeachment is, “Oh, no. You fucktards voted the guy in… now live with it for four years.” And, “Oh, no, you other fucktards ran the most detestable woman in modern history which put Generalismo Cheeto in office… now live with it for four years.”

    Or maybe Fucktard Nation is really super excited to make the destruction of a nation into a reality television show?

    No. Americans shouldn’t be able to cancel this series midseason. They should have to watch every shark-jumping episode including the big nuclear ending.

  27. Every president quickly start doing impeachable things — violating the strict limits on the powers of the federal government — and continues to do so throughout their term.

    They generally are not impeached for this because the people charged with impeaching are also violating those strict limits, and don’t see anything particularly wrong with those violations.

    So we wind up with Bill Clinton getting impeached for having blowjobs from an intern (yeah, technically it was for something else, but we all know better.)

    1. Bill Clinton got impeached because, when faced with the prospect of being hoist on his own petard (sexual harassment law,) he tried to lie his way out while under oath.

  28. I thought Dalmia’s piece was pretty good, other than her description of Trump’s wiretap claims as “unhinged.” When the people accused of doing X come right out and admit they did X, that seems to kind of vindicate the accuser, even when they say “well, X isn’t really X and I’m special and he’s not, sooooooo …”

  29. The Case for Trump’s Impeachment is Over-Determined
    Where is divided government when you need it?
    Shikha Dalmia|May 18, 2017 11:15 am

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, Reason, why?
    WHY?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.