Home | About | Donate

Nearly 200 Dems Sue Trump for Placing 'Personal Interest Over National Interest'

Lobo - I think you are making the mistake of thinking that impeachment is a quick turn-around process. Special Prosecutors take a good deal of time to get their reports together (1 year minimum) but keep making news throughout. Then the House and Senate work on impeachment takes about a half year each so you are talking two years total. During those two years much less legislation gets passed and so we are less screwed.
Hence, if your argument is that you prefer the incompetence of Trump to the potential efficiency of Pence, then you should be all for the process of impeachment moving forward without impeachment actually happening. That gives us the most dysfunctional Republican government possible.

2 Likes

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but keep in mind that the GOP-led Senate just changed the rules and threw the press out of the building to cover up their secret talks around Obamacare repeal. Nothing is working the way it used to, and I’m pretty certain that if the GOP wants to, they will fall all over themselves to do whatever it takes to accomplish it. Unlike the Dems, they know how to wield power. It’s also a different matter when a Party wants to get rid of it’s own, knowing the opposition Party will support them; plus the pending midterms would put pressure on them to act quickly. If they can fast-track legislation, with both parties in agreement, they can find a way to fast-track impeachment. You may be 100% correct, but for me, all bets are off.

Like I said, there are scenarios, and this is one of them, but it very much depends on what happens between now and the midterms. It does require downward movement in the polls, which have been holding in the low 30’s percentile since Trump’s election. Trump has to take a big fall that affects congressional candidates’ numbers for the GOP to act. I can’t believe the GOP would risk losing Congress to save Trump, when they have Pence waiting in the wings.

Also, this is the only way I see a successful impeachment of Trump happening at all. The Dems have a really long way to go just to take over Congress and currently do not have the power to force an impeachment hearing. When the Dems held Congress, they did not try to impeach Bush for lying us into unending war in the Middle East; there’s no reason to believe they will impeach for lesser crimes and misdemeanors even if they do gain the power… So either the GOP does it, or it doesn’t happen at all.

1 Like

Donors are very different from conducting a global business from the White House brand.

And if you wonder so much, why not do some research instead of making a blanket charge shrouded in hypotheticals?

Pence has a very, very limited base (extreme evangelicals) that has already been disappointed in that djt’s chaos hasn’t pushed God to push Kim Jong Un to launch Armaggedon and the Rapture. Pence is not there to become President. And no, the GOP does not “know how to wield power”; it has accomplished nothing but obstruction over the last 9 years. And yesterday’s shooter is far from the only leftie getting fed up.

I was being kind in “wondering” how many of the Democrats themselves support policy (or fail to do so) in concert with campaign donors’ wishes.

Feel free to keep your head buried in the sand, but the major criticism that has led many to feel the way they do about the duopoly is precisely because of such conflicts and the policies which follow.

To ignore as you do here, the vast amounts of money “invested” by the holders of concentrated capital in both sides of the aisle (which, yes, I have often researched and which needs no extensive digging to discover) is intellectually lazy to say the least. To pretend it has no bearing on policy is both dishonest and disgusting.

These private “investments” come in the form of campaign donations and other campaign help,and in assurances of private positions and gratuities; and aside from buying legislation, they also help buy influential seats at the highest level. Read, for example, about Citi’s preferred cabinet list, many of whom made it into Obama’s administration.

That’s why we can’t adequately address climate destabilization, the absurd cost of pharmaceuticals, why we have insufficient controls on GMOs and why states can’t adopt GMO labeling, why fracking is (literally) exploding despite pubic concerns, why trade policies are written that undermine the basic tenets of representative governance, allowing corporations to effectively override the policies of elected officials, etc.

As I’ve written numerous times, I believe Trump very likely and in numerous instances to be in violation of the emoluments clause; it is clear that his business interests represent at the very least the potential for conflict of interest. He is the ultimate manifestation of the corruption that has all but removed the vestiges of democratic governance and the concept “of, by, and for the people”.

But when those who bring the charges are themselves corrupted, even if less obviously so, the prosecution is weakened.

But hey! This is a “free” country. So feel free to comfort yourself with comforting, black-white narratives that allow you to remain somnambulant and ok with the status quo. Who cares what lies ahead for the succeeding generations?

I’m not the one making black-white narratives. I’m just saying unspecified gray does not disqualify one from pointing out clear black (or green). I take my MOCs as individuals, and hold them individually accountable for their actions and inactions. I can’t keep up with every one of them, but leave the others to their own constituents.

If we demanded absolute purity before anyone could say anything, we’d be in even deeper doo-doo than we are, and that’s saying something.

BKS, you’re still ignoring the elephant in the room, which was my main point. To repeat, it’s that the corrupting influence of concentrated capital compromises both parties, leading its representatives to all-too-frequently compromise the public interest, and thereby the national interest, in the service of personal interest. And this taint is widespread and undeniable on the face of the facts. This then weakens the credibility of those who rail against the improprieties of Trump or the other side.

Forgive me if it’s unfair, but I seriously doubt that you hold any of your DP representatives accountable, given your willingness to give a pass on this issue. THIS IS the central issue of American politics, for all other problems flow from it.

2 Likes

need it to be a felony for anyone to spend more than $5,000 to influence an election … could happen under a democracy

1 Like

Not ignoring a thing, just saying it’s neither here nor there on this lawsuit. From here on, though, I will ignore your apparent desire to prove yourself better than I am. It’s descending to ad hominem whining, and it’s beyond tiresome.

I agree. The record will show you attacked first in suggesting I needed to “research”. I challenged you to respond to the points of my original post instead, but you chose to ignore the inconvenient truths underlying my critique, with each subsequent post. As you are either incapable or simply refuse to engage in dialog honestly, henceforth I’ll ignore you as well.

1 Like

Spiro Agnew didn’t become President so not every scenario would result in a Pence presidency.

I guess we’re not living in the same country. Republicans have wielded power most effectively for corporate America for quite some time, to such great effect, they’ve even got the Democrats to replicate their strategy, except Democrats don’t have the discipline or the base to pull it off. Reagan came into power and unleashed the trickle down theory on the nation, and since then, we’ve seen Republican after Republican, along with a number of Democrats willing to sell their souls to corporations, offer different variations on this theme. Hell, even Obamacare is Republican Mitt Romney’s idea, and because a Democrat passed it, they’re repealing it. Then there’s Fox News. They most definitely know how to wield power, are unafraid to wield power, and seem to exist for the sole purpose of exerting power; their accomplishments tend to have a very bad effect on We the People.

Trump didn’t have a base before this election either. You become the leader of a Party, and all of a sudden you have a base. If Pence becomes President through impeachment, he’s a made man. Further the title Vice President means Pence is there to become President should anything happen, and that’s not outside the realm of possibility with gun-toting crazies lurking in the shadows–as you noted.

Right you are, because Agnew had already resigned under charges of tax fraud, bribery, and conspiracy before Nixon resigned instead of being impeached. Gerald Ford became president. A more apt example is Clinton, who was impeached and won. Point taken though: my scenarios didn’t include Trump successfully defending himself. (I can’t wrap my head around a defense for Trump. There is no defense to explain what that sub-human says or does.)

They yap to their choir. That’s not power. Can we get back to this lawsuit?

They yap through one of the biggest microphones on Earth and in so doing have managed to convince a portion of the populace, who vote, that there’s no global warming, Trump is a populist, tax breaks for the wealthy are good for the economy, Latinos are stealing our jobs and ruining the economy, Obama was born in Kenya, women exist to be sexually harassed, etc, etc, etc. It is frighteningly apparent how they use their power to undermine not only Democrats but democracy itself. The real kicker is how MSNBC emcees do their schtick every night on what Fox News just said. Do you really believe that Fox News has had little impact on the position in which we now find ourselves? If the left cannot identify power brokers and centers of corporate political power, it won’t be able to take them out and win an actual democracy that works. But hey, let’s get back to the lawsuit, which is a political ploy and not an actual tool that builds power for the people.

We wouldn’t be here in the first place if the Democrats had a clue. Trump is dismantling everything Obama tried to do or actually did, and the Dems file a lawsuit in response. They should change their name to the Too Little Too Late Party, which really encapsulates Obama’s entire presidency, their overall lack of foresight, and this lawsuit. For this to work on the public’s perception, the Dems should have filed the moment he was sworn in and started violating the emoluments clause. Instead they are just at the back of the line of 100 other plaintiffs others already suing since Trump became president.

You have a strange understanding of hierarchies of power. And you cite Town and Country (!!) citing a Boston Globe story from a month ago to stand 196 Members of Congress behind 100 other public and private citizens. I guess if you can’t find anything meaningful to say about it, yapping is something to do.

[quote=“formerly, post:29, topic:42452, full:true”]"[We] need it to be a felony for anyone to spend more than $5,000 to influence an election . . . could happen under a democracy."[/quote]$5,000 might be a little high; $1,000 or maybe $2,500 at most would be more reasonable.  (Remember that Bernie did pretty well with a claimed average donation of only $27.)  But not to worry – the U.S. isn’t a demo- cracy and hasn’t been even a representative republic for several years; even as loose a limit as you suggest ain’t gonna happen here!

1 Like

After eight years of Barack’s disregard for the Constitution and politicing of the IRS (Lois Lerner’s pleading the fifth) and the obvious corruption in the Attorney General’s tarmac meeting with Bill, you want to claim the Emulients clause for a man who has legitimately made billions of dollars. If Hillary had of won the election, would you be at all concerned about the Clinton Family Foundation? Honestly, does no one have a problem with those examples?

You clearly understand the hierarchy of power and patriarchy: when all else fails, shoot the messenger:[quote=“bkswrites, post:37, topic:42452”]
I guess if you can’t find anything meaningful to say about it, yapping is something to do.
[/quote]
Had you presented logical arguments that refuted my responses, you could have won the day or brought it to a draw. But alas, you end your last comment with a personal insult. Karl Rove would be proud.

1 Like