Politics Trump - What has he done now???

But that is really not true.

For the first two years, Democrats in Congress responded publicly to what they thought were inappropriate or illegal actions, both at a personal level and a policy level. but had little recourse. In a few cases, they challenged Trump's actions in court; Trump won some of those legal challenges and Democrats won some. This was no different than Republican legal challenges of Obama's actions.

For the last nine months since they became the majority in the House , they have taken on the Constitutional oversight role and called on the Trump administration to explain specific policy actions in Congressional hearings and Trump repeatedly refused to allow members of his administration to appear in those oversight hearings.

Republicans held countless oversight hearings over the Obama administration and with only a few exceptions, Obama complied with requests for members of his administration to appear. Some went on for months and months with no other purpose than to find a "got you" to use against Obama.

The system of "checks and balances" is at the very foundation of the Constitution with the intent of ensuring that the president does not abuse the power of his office. In fact, in terms of co-equal branches of government the framers put the Legislative branch, Congress, first in the Constitution (Article I) over the Executive branch (Article II).

And Trump continues to willfully deny the co-equal status of Congress. Oversight of the executive branch is a critical role of Congress, equal to enacting laws and approving government spending. Every president has been subjected to Congressional oversight. No president has attempted to deny Congress its right to perform this oversight function as much as Trump.; not even close by any recent president.

In the last two months, that oversight has reached a new level with charges brought by a whistleblower of actions by Trump that were believed to be illegal. Two Trump appointees - the Intelligence Inspector General and the CIA top legal counsel - said the whistleblower's report appeared to be "credible and urgent" and resulted in an appropriate House investigation. As more evidence was revealed despite Trump refusing to cooperate, it became an "impeachment inquiry" so that some present and former Trump officials could be compelled to testify.

Impeachment is the role of last resort when there is evidence that a president may have violated his/her oath of office.

 

---EDIT to add note: I wrote the following before reading Redux's response. I decided not to change anything.---

You are correct. The Democrats have good reason to want him gone, and remember the Republicans didn't want Trump either.

If Trump had not been able to help create, at least partially, and exploit the Perfect Storm of Discontent that formed during the 2016 campaign, he would not have won the Republican nomination and would not have been elected as an independent.

Trump brought mountains of baggage with him to the Presidency, and some of it was from his campaign. Paying off a mistress with the reimbursement eventually coming from campaign funds (totally illegal), working with a supporter to kill a story from another mistress (illegal), pursuing emails that were known to be stolen (unethical, possibly illegal), and several smaller, relatively speaking, issues.

His numerous attempts to bypass legislative procedures by using "executive privilege" earned him many enemies. Most of those efforts have been overturned by the courts.

Also Trump likes to taunt; kicking the bear over and over again is not a good idea.


Think of it this way, a scenario:

1. Management had a lot of debate over whether or not to hire you because you had a work history filled with claims that couldn't be confirmed or refuted.

2. You don't win the majority of the votes to hire you, but some of the votes you receive carry a lot of weight, so you get hired.

3.. After you're hired it turns out you pulled several questionable moves to discredit the other job candidates.

4. Once on the job you start attempting numerous shortcuts that clearly go against company policy.

5. When called out for 3 and 4, you taunt your accusers, and dare them to find a way to fire you.



One thing to consider:

If the tables were turned--substitute Obama for Trump--the Republicans would be after Obama with the same vigor and actions. Don't forget the efforts to impeach Clinton. Yes, he clearly lied about receiving oral sex from a White House intern, but that is pretty tame compared to what Trump pulled as a private businessman (to be fair the Clintons have some extremely questionable history as well), as a candidate, and as POTUS.

 

View: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1191383105271214082?


What's next...

Legal experts say Trump's last-ditch effort to hide his taxes is 'untenable,' and we could see them as soon as next year

 

I so want to see Trump's extreme exaggerations exposed, and his tax fraud prosecuted. Not to mention where the money came from for some of his mysterious financial turnarounds.

 

Another violation of the law...


View: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1191409674656059392


§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.
An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.

 

Is trump's personal twitter account considered a part of the presidency? This did not come through his president Twitter account. So would this still be considered a violation? Or would this be different than say Obama going on oprah and talking about real authors, not trump promoting his son butthead and his shadow author who probably writes for people and us weekly and cosmo.

 

Unethical at best?

I see a big difference between "talking about" and "promoting."

 

A federal appeals court ruled several months ago that Trump uses his Twitter account "to conduct official business and to interact with the public."

U.S. Appeals Court Rules Trump Violated 1st Amendment By Blocking Twitter Followers

This was in the context of Trump wanting to block critics on his Twitter account and the court saying that would be unconstitutional. (You and I can block whomever we want on Twitter; Trump cannot given that he uses the account to conduct official government business.)

In an earlier court rulings Trump was warned he cannot permanently delete any Twitter posts because of the "official use of his account" and thus any post would be considered official government records.

It would seem to me that the same would apply here.

 

Thanks for the clarification. Real presidents are technically never off duty

 

Paula White, Trump’s key spiritual adviser, will join the White House

More on Paula White....(watch the video)


View: https://twitter.com/WestWingReport/status/1191620012236255232


Please dont take this as a comment about all "spiritual" advisers, but I vote for "scary"

 

Does Trump even have a soul?

Trump: Paula, I need something spiritual to help me through my persecutions.

White: God wants you to be rich, and he's not picky about how you get rich.

Trump: That works for me. Anything else?

White: No matter what happens, you will always be The Donald, and have great and unmatched wisdom.


No Twitter account, no watch.

 

This has nothing to do with Trump's performance as POTUS, but it does speak to his (lack of) character.

Trump has been ordered to personally pay 2M as part of the Trump Foundation dissolution. The NY State Attorney General stated Trump should've kept better control of the foundation bearing his name.

The list of violations, and the history of of violations, are lengthy.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f804e2-018e-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html



Old News....

Trump Foundation Will Dissolve, Accused of ‘Shocking Pattern of Illegality’

 

While I agree with the article overall (Trump is ignorant, obtuse, delusional, & impulsive), I do find a lot of opinion and conjecture by the author, Mark Bowden.

But yes, Trump is much more dangerous to the USA than most people know. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, don't be surprised if Trump starts a war for no other (real) reason than to sway voters 2020.