Looks like someone fell asleep in the Tanning Booth???
Thank you, Amy.
Trump is a criminal whose crimes include harming people, stealing, perjury, using mobster money, obstructing justice, extortion, bribery, rape, etc.
But his biggest crime, along with Bolsonaro and other nature-hating leaders, is the crime of ecocide.
He has put more poison into our air, land, water and people.
He has harmed efforts to protect the environment and human health.
He has gutted our public lands, parks and EPA.
All his crimes are impeachable, but killing the biosphere is the most egregious of all, and I hope he is held accountable.
Yet more scientific verification that being stupid is deadly.
The parrot says, " “We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability.” " Other parrots nod in unison.
The owl says, ‘We strongly believe this country should create economic prosperity and energy security through environmental sustainability. We have the tools - we lack the conviction.’ The evidence supports the owl’s contention.
It’s not just Trump. If somehow every Senator and Congressperson were impeached for their climate crimes, we wouldn’t have enough left to run a government.
I’m all for dumping Trump, but it would be immensely hypocritical for for Congress to give Trump the boot for his climate crimes, not to mention being a less than believable fantasy.
Here, bow down and kiss the ring…
I hope that no one mistakes me for a supporter of Twump, but I want to know what specific statutes Goodman and Moynihan are accusing him of violating here. Some things that should be crimes are not, as much as we might wish otherwise.
But anything that distracts from the mountain of provable crimes–emoluments clause violations, obstruction-of-justice and contempt of Congress counts too numerous to list, and campaign finance “irregularities”–must be viewed with suspicion.
Yeah, it’s not like congress or democrats are doing anything about the climate crisis. All roads simply do not lead to Trump. He is swimming in a big pond full of jackasses.
An impeachable offense can be anything the House votes to say it is, it does not have to be a federal or state statute. If they voted to, they could impeach him for having the worse comb-over mankind has ever seen.
Cowardice in addressing the Climate Crisis will be the historical record for Trump and his minions.
Profit, in place of Planet is what 95% of the voting electorate continues to support in the voting booth.
In a better universe, T. and his kind would be put in a locked garage w/a locked car w/the engine turned on…a new Dante circle of hell where the punishment fits the crime…
…They’d never actually die, just for eternity press their asphyxiating faces on the glass…
Oh my Gawd! Until this day I’ve felt like Cassandra, since I’ve made this argument NUMEROUS times. Readers might be interested in my new piece, published just yesterday at OpEdNews
Though admittedly, my piece at Medium has more readable type–though Medium after long consideration rejected it for distribution, thereby sabotaging its readership. I’m curious why,
Call me crazy, but I think that would constitute an ex post facto law, which the Constitution expressly prohibits. There are more promising avenues toward removing Twump from office–if only the political will weren’t conspicuously absent.
You’re response is misguided because you’re still making the assumption impeachment has to be over LAW, whether statutory or ex post facto. A reading of the Constitutional Convention debate and the Federalist Papers (considered the best available gloss on the Framers’ intent) strongly suggests that it doesn’t, and both courts and Constitutional scholars have overwhelmingly backed that view. George Mason’s original suggested language was “maladministration,” and James Madison objected that that would open the door to impeachment over mere disagreements about policy. So Mason then suggested the replacement language “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term from British common law well known to the Framers and generally applied to prevent abuse of office by the King’s high officials. Several of the impeachments under British common law for “high crimes and misdemeanors” did NOT involve crimes; the clause’s subsequent use in the US (mostly to remove federal judges) didn’t necessarily involves crimes either, but such abuses of office as drunkenness while on the bench.
Finally, if impeachment WERE about crimes, it would include criminal penalties and not mere removal from office. The Framers’ intent to prevent dangerous abuse of office by high officials–and NOT simply statutory crimes–seems quite clear. Ecocide amidst a climate emergency seems as dangerous an abuse of office as one could imagine.
You’re welcome. I happen to be well informed about this topic because I’ve been pressing for Trump’s impeachment for ecocide for a long time and so was forced to research the topic of whether impeachable offenses need to be statutory crimes.
I was so delighted that someone with a bigger name and audience than mine has called for Trump’s impeachment over climate that I went out to a bar and celebrated after reading Goodman and Moynihan’s piece!
I hope you enjoy the link and to know how happy I am to read someone that understands
Ii assume it’s the pieces about climate emergency you meant to show me, though your family history looks QUITE interesting.
Of course not! We all know you’re Deep State to the very core!