Does Trump have the power to pardon himself?

No, but his Vice President Mike Pence can pardon Donald Trump when he gets promoted because of Trump’s impeachment.

Most legal experts are saying no, but since no other US prez in history has tried it—not even Nixon, who was a lawyer—it would surely wind up in the Supreme Court. Read today’s news to find out more.

@flutherother I believe that the presidential pardon only applies to federal crimes. For what its worth.

Debatable, but he cannot block an impeachment.

But pardons can compel a pardoned person to testify, and cannot excuse future felonious behavior.

I think a president, guilty of a crime or not, can only be charged when they leave office.

It probably WILL happen, however. The Special Counsel has hired Hillary’s retainer and attorneys who have worked for Obama and the Clinton foundation and are now searching for crimes involving Trump’s past business dealings. Given the scope of Trump’s business dealings, the Special Counsel probably WILL eventually find a serious crime because they’ve been searching several months and aren’t working within any legally established parameters.

They can pretty much search for anything and use any crime they find. And most billionares have committed crimes along the way.

^Correct. It makes me wonder why they wouldn’t have already done this homework before the primary process….

Originally it was a probe into Russian meddling and Trump was NOT the focus. Then it shifted to Trump obstructing justice by threatening or intimidating or firing James Comey. It has shifted focus several times but now is about Trump’s finances and business dealings. There are no limits or parameters.

The objective has remained the same, to determine if Trump knew about the Russian meddling and if he colluded with the Russians. If Trump has extensive financial arrangements in Russia, that could have been and may continue to be an incentive for him to cooperate with them, and may lead to evidence of collusion. It is simply an application of the idea of following the money. It would help things considerably if Trump, like all other recent presidents, would release his tax returns. What is he hiding?

Amazing. Everyone is riveted on trying to figure out what Trump will do when convicted of crimes for which there is no evidence. In fact, just the opposite…all the fiasco with Russia has come out with sworn testimony from multiple people that he was not involved. If Trump actually does break a law, I will be more than happy to join the chorus of those looking for punishment for him. But for now I have to ask: Where was all this fervor when Obama was blatantly violating the Constitution on multiple occasions? Face it…those of you so focused on trying to find blame with Trump are biased haters.

@Yellowdog. The point that you miss and Trump’s oversized ego will not allow him to consider is that it doesn’t matter which aspect of Trump’s existence is subjected to Scrutiny, the mere act of looking must ALWAYS uncover slime. There is no way in hell that Trump can survive a close unfettered examination of his affairs, and if nothing else, he will come to understand that the last thing he ever wants is to have that spotlight he craves trained on his doings. As you’re coming to realize, it no longer matters if as you believe, Trump is miraculously clean of involvement in collusion with the Russians in fixing the election. The focus would only shift to his clear involvement with the Russian mafia and crooked banks in laundering billions through his business enterprises. Trump is so encumbered with a questionable 40 year history of illicit dealings that his is an administration doomed to virtual perpetual investigation. It no longer matters if he wiggles out of the Russia investigations. The fact that this probe opens his tax records to examination means that his goose is as good as cooked.

@stanleybmanly While it is true that the POTUS can always be subjected to scrutiny, when an investigation is underway, for it to continue to change focus means it is not an investigation, it is a witch hunt. I agree with @Yellowdog on this. There are no limits or parameters. The original investigation was into “Russia hacking the election”. When it became painfully obvious that Trump had nothing to do with any of that, it shifted to “Obstruction of Justice. When that was a no-go, it was“What about his business dealings?”. I totally fail to see what the focus of the investigation really is, other than “Try to dig up SOMETHING on Trump”...or in lay terms…a witch hunt. But let’s back up a bit. The investigation into “Russia hacked the election”, when Trump was cleared, tried spreading to his family members. And it was digging hard until it was uncovered that the Russian Lawyer that was at the heart of that investigation was given preferential treatment for a visa into this country during Obama’s term, by his DoJ. It also shows that she misrepresented herself to Trump Jr. by stating she had no ties to the Kremlin or the Russian Government. So here is a thread that is just begging to be pulled and the investigation drops it dead. Why was that? Given the fervor at which they are investigating Trump and the alacrity at which they drop anything that would (a) go against that investigation or (b) point right back to Obama, one can only conclude that they are on a witch hunt.

Let’s look at the facts. The Russians interfered with our election, posting information illegally obtained from DNC emails. Funny how Trump goes nuts over White House leaks but is not at all bothered by the Russian leaks. He even asked the hackers to look into Clinton’s emails.

An investigation of the Russian hacking is fully justified and should have Trump’s endorsement. As the beneficiary of the hacking, there is the obvious question of what Trump knew and if he worked with the Russians. The firing of James Comey and the various previously undisclosed contacts between Trump’s people with the Russians adds to the concern. It does not help Trump’s cause when he talks about pardoning himself. Why should that be necessary? What is Trump hiding in his tax returns?

There is a bipartisan measure going through Congress that would require Congressional review of any attempts by Trump to lift sanctions against Russia. The bill already made it through the Republican controlled Senate and is expected to pass in the Republican controlled House this week. There are obviously members of his own party who do not trust Trump. Will Trump veto the measure? If so, would the veto be overridden? Stay tuned. Things could get interesting, and they don’t look good for Trump regardless of how it turns out.

@LostInParadise Let’s dig a little deeper into some of this. There is a story that Russians hacked the DNC computers and the IMPLIED story is that somehow that turned the corner and made Hillary lose the election. But that opens up a whole lot of questions that nobody wants to look any closer at. First, did any American voters really care? Here’s a quiz to answer that. (1) When were the emails first released? (2) Whose emails were they (who was targeted)? (3) How many emails were there? (4) What was in these emails? The answers are pretty simple…nobody knows or cares. The actual answers to some of these are: (1) July 22 2016, (2) Communications Director Luis Miranda (10520 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3799 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finanace Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1742 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). (3) 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments, (4)...I have no idea because I don’t care enough to read 44,000+ emails. Nobody does.
Then Wikileaks released more (8,000+) emails right before the election….like a day or two before election day. But remember, early voting was already done in many places so this couldn’t impact anything. Probably the most damning thing in some of these emails was communications that showed the DNC helped Hillary beat Bernie. Basically, they played the voters.
But nobody really ever wants to look at the content of these emails. They don’t want to go into questions about how much impact, if any, releasing these emails might have had on the election. So why is that? Could it be that to focus on the actual content of the emails would be to expose the dirty underbelly of the DNC and its candidates? To focus on the lack of impact on the election would expose the tremendous waste of time and money that is the investigations into any “Russian interference”? Even Obama came out and said the Russian influence didn’t have any impact on the election. Of course that might have been before Hillary lost so that makes this witch hunt even more of a waste of time and money.
In the end, by July of 2016, most people had already decided how they were going to vote. Either you liked the path the country was on or you didn’t. If you liked it, you were going to vote for Hillary. If you didn’t, you were going to vote for Trump. Emails released by Wikileaks basically had no impact whatsoever on the election.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-trump-cant-pardon-himself-the-constitution-tells-us-so/2017/07/21/f3445d74-6e49-11e7-b9e2-2056e768a7e5_story.html?utm_term=.0dd60da979af

@seawulf575 When it became painfully obvious that Trump had nothing to do with any of that,

That point is still in contention. Trump knew of DJT Jr’s meeting with the Russians, he apparently knew of Sessions meeting to discuss the campaign with the Russian ambassador.

Trump owes Russian oligarchs millions, and his representatives were in communication with the Russians from early 2016.

@seawulf575 , I do think that the Russian hacking influenced the election, but that is not the main concern. How did the Russians get into the email accounts? What else did they hack? Are they trying to get into the voting machines? There is a potentially very serious threat to American democracy. Based on the evidence so far, there is a legitimate question of when Trump knew about this and if he collaborated, which would be serious grounds for impeachment.

I think it’s funny when Trump supporters talk about witch hunts. Apparently they don’t remember Trump himself trying for 8 years to prove that Obama was a Muslim from Kenya. With the goal of course to impeach Obama…. Or the millions wasted, by the GOP, trying to get Bill out of office.

Trump can dish it, now he’ll have to take it. Turn about is fair play right?

When Trump suggested the election could be rigged, the media and the democrats had a field day, suggesting that Trump and his supporters would NOT accept the results and possibly start a coup.

—Obama explained carefully how this was IMPOSSIBLE and for Trump to “Stop Whining.”

—Joe Biden told Trump to “Stop Whining” and “Grow Up.”

—Hillary’s final words were, “How DARE Donald J. Trump question the process and integrity of the American VOTING system?”

And yet, AFTER the election, Hillary said it was the Russians. Recounts were done and evidence was searched for, turning up nothing. Then the collusion theories begin. There’s been an awful lot of whining.

@zenvelo the CIA, the FBI, and DHS have all come out and claimed Trump knew nothing of the hacking. As for the meeting between Jr. and the Russian Lawyer, that too has come to a dead end. Trump asked the question, and rightfully so, if the lawyer had any ties to the Kremlin. She specifically stated to them that she did not. That is also a piece of evidence that is out there. Yet another piece that the investigation continues to dodge is the fact that this same attorney work with the Obama administration for special visa status when it was known she had ties to the Russian FSB. So why aren’t we looking into that tie? Another point of contention is that Obama himself knew of the Russian “interference” but claimed it wasn’t anything to worry about…that the election would represent the will of the American people. His song changed when Hillary lost.
You are acting like Trump is selling out America to the Russians. He owes them millions and has business dealings with them and his representatives were in contact with the Russians. That too was proven to be nothing as nothing concerning the election was discussed…purposely. However it is amazing to me that we don’t look at the same sort of corruption from the other side. Hillary has a lot of mounting evidence and coincidence that shows she was selling favors when she was Sect of State. She also the Russians our uranium mining rights and amazingly the Clinton foundation got generous endowments from the same Russians she was working with. But let’s not talk about that…right?

@LostInParadise you still miss a whole bunch of the questions I have posed. Did the Russians hack the DNC? Possibly. I’m not even convinced of that since it is a weak target for a hack. And even if they did, what was so horrible in what they got from the emails? And if it really was that horrible, and the American people were all up to speed on it (which is extremely unlikely) and it truly influenced the voting, what does that say about the emails and their senders? It says they were all dirt and were bad enough that their behaviors told the American people that they wanted anyone but Hillary as the POTUS. Yet we don’t talk about the contents of the emails. Why is that, do you suppose? Additionally, Obama AND Hillary claimed that the vote was fair…right up to the point where Hillary lost. Obama even knew about the “Russian” interference but chose to do nothing about it. So he was collaborating with them by his tacit acceptance and lack of action. But if it was truly an issue, why would you NOT say and do something about it? Not to mention that all the alphabet agencies have pretty much come out and concluded that Trump was not involved…and many of those stating this were Obama cronies. At some point it becomes a total witch hunt. Besides, if Trump truly was involved, why would he have supported the investigation throughout? Why wouldn’t he have just done what Obama did and refuse to let the AG investigate anything?
If you are worried about the legitimacy of our voting, I would support all efforts to ensure those are solid. Let’s start with going back to written ballots (or some other form of voting other than computerized) and let’s start passing voter ID laws to ensure that only American citizens are voting and that they are voting only for themselves. Here are some other problems with our voting system: the software that is used to tally votes drops votes; Too many votes are cast in districts when compared to the number of voters that could legally vote; Voting volunteers have been caught casting votes for people as well as telling others how to vote. The list goes on and on. So if we want to really ensure our votes are legitimate, we need to start attacking all these problems.

@seawulf575 You’re getting off topic. The OP was whether or not Trump could pardon himself.

@Rarebear Yes, it started as that and quickly devolved into everything else. If the jellies want to drag the conversation into the whole Russian investigation as well as Trump’s personal finances and how to impeach him or charge him after he is out of office, we then I feel obliged to join in that conversation. But let’s take it as far as it can go…we can’t go stupid halfway, can we? And personally, I think I ask some very pertinent and valid questions which most Trump haters avoid like the plague. Why is that, do you suppose?

@seawulf575 Why don’t you ask your questions in separate questions on this site?

@Rarebear because they pertain specifically to this discussion. Funny how you aren’t correcting the others that started the drift from topic.

I read that the President cannot be pardoned from an Impeachment. It is only for crimes against the US but being impeached is different, I guess. Plus a pardon does not mean that you were not found guilty. Sure he could go free as a bird but he still has other things that follow him. Like he can never hold office and he can’t vote. Essentially, he is still considered a criminal. It doesn’t mean the person isn’t guilty. So if he give’s his SIL and daughter a pardon, then they still have a criminal record. At any time afterwards, if they should commit a crime and are found guilty, their pardon criminal act can be considered in their future sentence when assigning their sentence. A pardon doesn’t mean the act was expunged. It’s like when a robber gets found guilty of another crime after serving time. He’s considered a repeat offender, so they can tack on more years than for a first offense. So that means eventually they will go to jail. They can’t help but be in court constantly.

@seawulf575 Oh I flagged a bunch of posts, not only yours.

@seawulf575 “witch hunt” is the decoy thrown out to soothe Trump fans and sway the dull witted. And a powerful argument can be made that the line dividing the 2 is nonexistent. We’re talking CRIMES, and if one crime uncovers another, investigating those crimes is not witch hunting. You raid the bookie joint, break down the door, and stumble over a dead body. The focus shits to a murder investigation. The bookie howls “witch hunt”. The point is that whatever Trump door you care to open, there are going to be “bodies” aplenty to trip over, and this is why there will be investigations of Trump YEARS into the future. The number will both increase and expand almost exponentially, because there is no rock under which he has crawled in these 40 years that is free of slime.

@stanleybmanly I can easily see you are a poor deluded Trump hater. My sympathies for your closed mind. But let’s dissect your statements a little. If the cops search a premises for a bookie joint and they find a dead body, that will indeed change the focus of the investigation. But to search that location, they will have to have a WARRANT which will identify what they are looking for. That warrant will state the location they can search and what sorts of things they will look for. In the case of what is going on with this investigation they never fully identified what they are looking for. So that “warrant” would look more like “we don’t like this person so go search wherever you need to look for whatever you can find to try getting evidence against him.” That would be an illegal search and seizure and is a good definition of a witch hunt. Want another thought along that same line? Okay…This “investigation” shifted and tried going after Trump Jr. and his meeting with Russians. During this investigation it found a suspicious link between the Russian lawyer Trump Jr. met with (who, by the way, misrepresented herself to him) and Obama and Loretta Lynch. So by your logic, that should have shifted the investigation, but it didn’t. That link was dropped so they could go back to trying to find dirt on Trump. That is a good indication of a witch hunt. Wikileaks (the site that released the “hacked” emails) indicated that the source was not the Russians but was a certain DNC staffer that was killed in a botched robbery. By your logic, that should have changed the focus of the investigation, but it didn’t. It continued on trying (and not succeeding, might I add) to find dirt on Trump. That is a great indication of a witch hunt. As Yellowdog stated, this investigation has no limits or parameters. And as you, yourself, stated it is merely to continue turning over rocks until something can be found on Trump. But unlike what you stated, it has not found any indication of CRIMES and Trump has been found to be not involved in any wrongdoing repeatedly. So yes, this investigation is a witch hunt and more importantly, is a huge waste of taxpayer dollars and legislator time.
I admire your passion on trying to fight crimes committed by our leaders. It is something that should be done by all citizens. But one has to ask, were you this vocal and passionate when Obama was violating the Constitution (a CRIME) repeatedly? My guess is a resounding “NO”

It is the United States intelligence services that claimed the Russians tried to interfere with the US democratic process. It isn’t really to do with Trump. Trump denied it happened and has tried to stymie the investigation but this is a claim that has to be taken seriously and examined properly. Trump’s behaviour casts doubts over his innocence, any other president would welcome the investigation and wholeheartedly approve of it. If there is a suspicion that the Russians hold strings of influence over American elections or the American administration those strings have to be found and cut.

@seawulf575 , Your logic is scrambled. At one point you blame Obama for not going after the Russians sooner, and then you say the DNC hacking was an inside job. See if you can stick to one story.

The U.S. intelligence agencies all agree that the Russians were involved. Trump was shown the evidence and, on a good day, he will be in agreement. Like you, he alternates between saying that there was no Russian involvement, and complaining that Obama did not go after the Russians soon enough.

The investigation is not specifically targeted at Trump directly. It will be looking at ties between the Russians and people involved in his campaign. Today, Jared Kushner is testifying before Congress.

You say Obama committed crimes. Can you point to any?

@seawulf If we accept for sake of argument that you are correct and the REPUBLICAN run House and Senate are engaged in a witch hunt and completely willing to ignore the supposed crimes of Clinton And Obama. “Double standard” is the explanation by dummies FOR dummies, and is the clearest explanation for why it is consistenly parroted by guys like Hannity. Look at it this way. Regardless of all the howls about the persecution of St. Donald, the fact remains that 1:the Russians did indeed attempt to jiggle the Presidential election to Trump’s benefit. That fact is no longer in dispute. 2: An astonishing number of high level Trump administration officials had clandestine meetings with big time Russian kleptocrats in the runup to the election. 3.For some 40 years, Trump has distinguished himself as a man of VERY flexible ethics. To me there’s no point in arguing how unfair it is that the right could not succeed in pushing Clinton or Obama into a threshing machine such as the one that will surely devour Trump. All I can say is that I can’t recall any individual in my lifetime more dripping with reasons to be investigated, nor prone to talk himself into jail.

There has been an ongoing barrage of allegations against Trump from November 9th to this day, all turning up nothing. But it is orchestrating an effort to convince the nation and the world that Trump himself is committing atrocities and scandal.

Meanwhile, we KNOW of REAL CRIMES that Hillary was involved with and there is no question about, but the investigations died—mainly because it was assumed she would be president. Hillary’s crimes are very serious and DO involve national security, These have been overlooked and innuendo about Trump has dominated the news, t like a mad psychosis and deliberate effort at causing national hysteria.

Yes, Obama also was involved in crimes and in acts that were NOT in our nation’s best interest. But I am more concerned with the fact that 20 percent of our nation’s uranium belongs to Putin because Hillary signed it over as secretary of state— and the fact that Hillary really DID collude with a foreign power in undermining the American voting process

@LostInParadise Let me start by going on the record as saying that I am not a huge Trump fan. I see him as being somewhat immature. But that is not a crime. He uses Twitter way too much for my liking, but that is not a crime. Unfortunately, we live in times where the 5th estate isn’t doing its job and is, instead, turning into a propaganda machine. So Twitter becomes an outlet that can be used to get a message directly to the people.
The logic seems scrambled because I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Trump haters. There are all sorts of people that are ready to convict Trump of crimes for which there is no evidence. I give you this question as an example…Can Trump pardon himself? Pardon himself for what? Impeachment has been thrown out in this discussion repeatedly. Impeachment for what? There has been no crime committed. I bring up Obama going after the Russians sooner because with all the fervor over some Trump/Russia collusion, it would seem that Obama, who supposedly identified that the Russians had played some nefarious part, should have blown the whistle long before he did. If there was all this evidence of Trump/Russia collusion, why not bring it up BEFORE he wins the election, not after. The logic is baffling indeed. Don’t try saying there wasn’t evidence, because it mysteriously showed up BEFORE he was sworn into office, but after he won the election.
I bring up the DNC Leak being an inside job as a way of highlighting to an individual that says that you have to follow leads where they lead, that it isn’t happening. The Seth Rich case is a perfect example. Wikileaks, who released the DNC emails, implied that Seth Rich was the source, not Russia. Yet despite that glowing hint, the “investigation” does not want to follow that lead. Ditto that for the Russian lawyer that met with Trump Jr. Remember, she was asked if she had ties to the Kremlin and indicated she did not…which was a lie. Ties to Obama that were sketchy and showed extreme cooperation between the Obama Administration and this lawyer. Yet again…this glowing hint is dropped like a bad habit. I guess leads are only important if they can be stretched to try to implicate Trump. This is horrible investigation technique.
As for Obama breaking the law? Okay…let’s list them but let’s not go to the ones that hint at him potentially violating the Constitution…let’s stick with the actual events:
1. Recess Appointments…the president cannot appoint certain positions while Congress is in session, which he did. He claimed that the Senate wasn’t really in session since they were in a pro forma session. But the President doesn’t get to decide that…that is spelled out to be the balliwick of Congress.
2. Changing (without Congressional approval or changing of the law) the Affordable Care Act when it was detrimental to his plans. Look at the employer mandate, delaying the part of the law that limits how much people would have to pay for their own insurance, the statute that forces Congress to get their healthcare from exchanges instead of tax-payer funded programs. When Congress crafts legislation and the president signs it into being law, the president then has to enforce that law, not change it when he feels like it. Only Congress can change the law.
3. DACA and DAPA. Congress had never reformed immigration laws. Obama directed his DHS to institute policies that directly violated the existing laws. And DAPA was instituted after congress slapped him down over DACA. ‘Nuff said there. Clear violation.
4. Multiple EPA rules (Clean Power Plan, WOTUS rule, Carbon Cap & Trade). All of these violated existing laws and were fully support by Obama. Congress, judges, even the SCOTUS ruled against them, sometimes repeatedly.
5. Net Neutrality. Despite clear guidance by congress that the internet remain unregulated, Obama’s FCC attempted to do just that. It took court battles to prove that it violated the 1934 Communications act as well as the 1996 Telecommunications act. What did Obama’s FCC do? Rewrote the regulations, making them even more onerous.
Then, after doing a little more research, I came across this list that further exemplifies how lawless Obama was which in turn shows how hypocritical all these Trump haters really are (and I trimmed the list to remove those that I have already listed:
Ignoring Federal law requiring that each state be notified when/where refuges are being placed in their state. Article II Section 3

Ignored law by taking Iran Deal to UN prior to 60-day review period mandated by Iran Nuclear Agreement Review, and failed to turn over side agreements as outlined. – “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

Ignored Congressional Treaty Powers. Article II Section 1, Article II Section 2

Operation Choke Point program – Direct infringement on 2nd Amendment.

Violated statute on “Material Support of Terrorism” by returning top terrorists back to terrorist organizations. Article II Section 3; Dereliction of Duty Article II Section 4

Violated Appropriations Act (DOD Section 8111) – GAO report; Article II Section 3

Ignored law that requires Congress be notified prior to any detainees being moved from Guantanamo. “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

Appointed 24+ Federal agency czars without advice and consent of the Senate; Violation of Article II Section 2

Used Executive Privilege in regards to Fast & Furious gun running scandal. When Government misconduct is the concern Executive privilege is negated.

23 Executive Orders on gun control – infringement of the 2nd Amendment

Exposed identity and methods of operation of a Navy SEALs team – Illegal for a President to reveal classified military secrets. Article II Section 3

2 Executive actions mandating private health information on patients be turned over to NICS – Violation of HIPPA law.

Issued directive instructing ICE to NOT enforce immigration laws in certain cases. Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress; “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3; Article I Section 8

Release of convicted illegal aliens ordered in direct opposition to law-Article II Section 3

Used DOJ to ignore section 8 of the Voting Rights Act. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

Used DOJ to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing immigration laws. – 10th Amendment

Information memorandum telling states that they can waive the work requirement for welfare recipients, thereby altering the 1996 welfare reform law. – Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress.

Used NLRB to dictate to a business where they can do business. (Boeing Dreamliner Plant). No Constitutional authority to do so.

NDAA – Section 1021. Due process Rights negated. Violation of 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

Executive Order 13603 NDRP – Government can seize anything

Executive Order 13524 – Gives INTERPOL jurisdiction on American soil beyond law enforcement agencies, including the FBI.

Executive Order 13636 Infrastructure Cybersecurity – Bypassing Congress Article 1 Section 1, ALL Legislative power held by Congress

Attempt to tax political contributions – 1st Amendment

DOMA Law – Obama directed DOJ to ignore the Constitution and separation of powers and not enforce the law. ” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” Article II Section 3

Drone strikes on American Citizens – 5th Amendment Due process Rights negated

Obama took Chairmanship of UN Security Council – Violation of Section 9.

ACA (Obamacare) mandate – SCOTUS rewrote legislation and made it a tax because there is no Constitutional authority for Congress to force Americans to engage in commerce. SCOTUS has no authority to Legislate or lay taxes. Article I Section 1 & 8.

Contraceptive, abortifacients mandate violation of First Ammendment

Healthcare waivers – No president has dispensing powers

Refuses to acknowledge state’s 10th Amendment rights to nullify Obamacare

Chrysler Bailout -TARP – violated creditors rights and bankruptcy law, as well as Takings and Due Process Clauses – 5th Amendment (G.W. Bush also illegally used TARP funds for bailouts)

The Independent Payment Advisory Board (appointees by the president). Any decisions by IPAB will instantly become law starting in 2014 – Separation of Powers, Article 1 Section 1.

Congress did not approve Obama’s war in Libya. Article I, Section 8, First illegal war U.S. has engaged in. Impeachable under Article II, Section 4; War Powers Act – Article II Section 3
.
Obama falsely claims UN can usurp Congressional war powers.

With the approval of Obama, the NSA and the FBI are tapping directly into the servers of 9 internet companies to gain access to emails, video/audio, photos, documents, etc. This program is code named PRISM. NSA also collecting data on all phone calls in U.S. – Violation of 4th Amendment.

Directed signing of U.N. Firearms treaty – 2nd Amendment.

Obama ignored judicial order to fulfill legal obligation regarding Yucca Mountain waste. Article II, Section 3

SO…with a long list like this, where was the outcry to impeach him? I’d bet a shiny new dollar that not one of the current Trump hating jellies uttered one comment on the subject. They probably claimed the Republicans were racists.

@Yellowdog I truly appreciate a sane voice. Thank you.

sane voice? YOUR team is at bat! It isn’t a Democratic Congress that is leading BIPARTISAN investigations. These investigations are underway because 17 separate intelligence agencies UNANIMOUSLY judged Trump and his gang worthy of scrutiny. The stench is SO extreme that the REPUBLICAN Congress had no choice other than the embarrassing process of digging into its leader’s shenanigans. In fact, it’s a good bet that these agencies collectively already have the goods on Trump, which is why you cannot name a single sitting member of Congress willing to go on the record in defense of Bluto. NOTHING Obama or Clinton have been accused of even approaches the severity of what hangs over Trump. You 2 & Hannity may not see it, but you can bet your ass that the Trump crowd’s lawyers know full well the severity of the storm ahead, and pointing the finger at Obama or Hillary as a defense is the strategy of morons. Do you actually believe that “Hillary was naughty too” matters?

^Yup. Typical deflection tactics.

@stanleybmanly, your answer shows a great deal of what is wrong with this country. It is not MY team or YOUR team. We are talking about elected leaders that are supposed to be working for OUR team. But the game has devolved into some sort of “screw-you” kind of effort. And DC is full of corruption. To correct you further, it wouldn’t be MY team anyway. I’m an independent and have voted for both Repubs and Dems as well as Indies and others. But I have no doubt that a whole bunch of politically corrected folks have targeted Trump…he is not part of the good old boys club. That club is another thing that every American should be concerned about.
Your statement that 17 separate intelligence agencies judged Trump and his gang worth of scrutiny continues to show why you are part of the problem. Our elected officials should ALWAYS be under scrutiny. But in this case, we also have John Brennan and James Comey officially testify that Trump was not involved. That’s the CIA and the FBI. So your claim is stating to crumble, no…it has crumbled, before it was written.
As for the evils that Trump and his folks have committed being worse than anything Obama or Hillary have been accused of? That shows how truly deluded you are. See my previous post in response to lostinparadise. I listed over 40 items Obama did while president of the US that were examples of lies and deception and criminal activity. Most were direct violations of the US Constitution. Where was that same Scrutiny you were prattling on about while this was going on? Where was the outrage over his criminal activities? The only reason he wasn’t impeached was because no Dem would have voted for it. That goes back to that whole Your Team/My Team garbage. We should not allow our elected leaders to willfully violate the Constitution and we should not have an atmosphere where those violations are accepted and covered because of partisan politics.
I have stated it before and will state it again: If Trump actually did something that was criminal in nature and not just puffed up insinuation, I would be more than happy to support efforts push for his impeachment. But right now, there isn’t anything. There is just opinion and insinuation. Here’s another thought for you, though: Trump has actually opened up an investigation and appointed a special counsel to look into all this silliness. When did Obama EVER do that? In fact, he absolutely refused to even think about investigating things when it appeared he was involved. I give you Fast and Furious, IRS, and a few other scandals as examples.

@seawulf575 , I don’t have the resources to investigate all those supposed crimes. I do believe that in general the presidency has become too powerful, in part due to Congressional gridlock. The measure, overwhelmingly approved by the House yesterday, requiring Congressional review of any lifting of sanctions against Russia, is a rare and welcome assertion of authority. Maybe Trump’s authoritarianism will inspire more such actions. Trump is hinting at firing Sessions, a particular favorite among Republican congressmen. At some point Trump may push his fellow Republicans over the edge.

Trump supporters seem to assume their man is guilty before the investigation has even properly begun. They throw up all sorts of smokescreens and mirrors to try to deflect attention from an investigation which all Americans should support. Who knows, maybe Trump and his team are entirely innocent. But let’s find out.

Yes, lets find out. Mueller has hired Hillary’s retainer and six other lawyers for Hillary and Obama to investigate the matter,

and Mueller’s lifetime friend and associate James Comey is the chief witness. In fact, the Special Counsel was formed in response to information (classified) which James Comey leaked to a Professor who leaked it to the New York Times, prompting the establishment of the Special Council.

But what are the repulican smokescreens and mirrors to which you all are referring ?

@Yellowdog You keep repreating yourself, but you ignore what Kenneth Starr said.

“That is a great, great team of complete professionals,” Kenneth Starr, the former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton, told ABC News.

The members of Mueller’s team who’ve been named have a cumulative 37 years of experience at the FBI and 85 years at the Department of Justice, The Washington Post reported on Friday.

Mueller is well respected on both sides of the aisle, which is why Trump is forcing Sessions out,so he can be replaced with someone that will fire Mueller.

The smoke and mirrors are people like you and the White House who keep clamoring “what about Hillary?” despite multiple Republican investigations that turned up nothing of substance.

What do you mean ‘nothing of substance?’

If there is no doubt that an act occurred, and if such an act is defined as a felony, it should be pursued.

@Yellowdog Please point out the “felonious” act that Darrell Issa and/or Trey Gowdy and/or Jason Chaffetz found and disclosed. They sniffed every single chair that Hillary sat in for four years and found nothing to take to the Department of Justice. Same with the FBI, despite assurances from Rudy Giuliani that “The FBI Hates Hillary”.

There were enough Republican attorneys in the Justice Department under Obama that they would have been much more vocal than Preet Bharara has been over the Trump Administration’s interference over investigations

Yeah, Trump did something wrong. But puppies are soft!...~

Trump supporters, it doesn’t matter what is brought up to deflect attention here. Your boy is going under the microscope. If he’s SO innocent, and it’s all “fake” news, there should be nothing to worry about….

Just like when Starr couldn’t bring Bill down. Just why Hillary is walking free, and Obama went back to his hidden volcanic fortress without prison time…

@LostInParadise I will absolutely agree that congress needs to step up. Their lack of action for the past decade or more is exactly why their approval rating hovers around 10–20%. We pay these people to make sometimes tough decisions and all they do is waffle. Exactly why term limits should be enacted. The Constitution gives certain powers to the President and certain powers to Congress. Never the twain shall meet is the idea, but that is not how it always works. I come down hard on Obama but really, he couldn’t have been as lawless as he was (and feel free to look into a few of the above listed items) if Congress were not complicit either actively (as with Democrats) or passively (as with Republicans). In the end, I am fed up with corruption and with watching our country be treated like some ditzy blonde by our elected leaders. My apologies to any ditzy blondes out there. What we are seeing right now is fear and anger by the “establishment” pols…those that are career politicians. They have developed a formula for getting re-elected while not actually doing anything. They are masters at taking a job that pays under $200k/yr and parlay it into millions in just a few years. It is amazing. But Trump is not a career politician. What he did by merely getting elected is he showed the world that career politicians are not doing anything and that they can be beaten. Trump is boorish and immature. He is not dignified. But he could look at the country and actually listen to what the people are screaming about and play on that. That scares the career types. That breaks their game entirely. And that is exactly why Trump can expect (and has gotten) no support from either Dems or Repubs or the media. And that is why this entire Russia-hack fiasco is so silly. Comey and Brennan both came out and admitted that there was no evidence implicating Trump. That was months ago. Yet the whole game continues. Even the media knows it is a farce, but it brings in ratings. But they (the establishment pols) will use this as a way to dig up SOMETHING they can use against Trump. Meanwhile, Congress continues to do nothing, and are making zero efforts at doing anything.
There are serious problems in this country. We are in hurting shape. Congress really needs to address them since they are the ones that create the laws. The president only approves (or rejects) and enforces the laws. So while the Kabuki theater goes on, we the citizens continue to get screwed.

Yes. He’s currently “enforcing” the law requiring him to hound gays out of the armed forces. You’re right in stating that Trump gets no support from establishment career politicians. But this lack of support is not due to any resentment of him as an outsider, but more to the fact that he is a visible buffoon. And while it is true that there is a deficit of respect for the man in the great bulk of the people working for him, there is certainly no shortage of love on the part of Russian criminals, a class that certainly encompasses that country’s leadership. There is truth in the supposition that “liberals” (a term now expanded to include anyone believing the man an ignorant embarrassment) liberals will “dig up something” to undo Trump. But you would struggle to find a target for prospecting as juicy as Trump. Witch hunting is not required when the landscape is crawling with witches.

@Zenvelo Hillary committed a felonious act by her handling of classified materials. If you remember, the final analysis from James Comey was that she absolutely broke the law but that “she didn’t mean to” so they weren’t going to prosecute. Intent is not an excuse for breaking a law. Intent is not written into any of the laws that she broke. But when you are in with corrupt group, it becomes a nice excuse to avoid actually enforcing the law. What Comey was really saying was that “We aren’t going to prosecute her so I had to come up with some excuse to tell the world.”

Clinton did not benefit from mishandling the emails. She was negligent. What harm came of it? The government classifies a lot of documents that many would say do not need to be classified. We should definitely err on the side of caution, but there does not seem to be much damage that occurred. Why can’t we leave this issue alone? What purpose is served by beating this dead horse?

The breach of DNC emails, on the other hand, is interference by a foreign power of our electoral integrity. Their action definitely benefited Trump. There is every reason to investigate this and see what other hacking is being done. Trump should be in favor of this. His handling of the matter indicates Comey’s firing, Michael Flynn’s meetings and Sessions’ meetings and those of Trump’s family certainly look suspicious and warrant further investigation. Now Trump looks like he is trying fire Sessions and Mueller. The longer this goes on, the worse it looks.

It really looks likt Trump is trying to run this country like a reality game show. Stay tuned, folks, and see who gets voted off the island!

I’ve been in and out of this discussion, but I just want to step in here to clarify something. James Comey did not say that Hillary Clinton absolutely broke the law. Comey said that “no reasonable prosecutor” would charge her, (“reasonable” here being a decision based on the law, and not on how much people likes or dislikes her) and he explained why.

(Sorry for the length. This was supposed to be a quick aside. Oh well.)

Here is an excerpt from the FBI statement he read aloud, where he’s explaining the FBI’s recommendation:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. [Emphasis added]

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. [Emphasis added]

Full statement here

In short, Hillary, or anyone who did what she did, should expect some “security or administrative sanctions” imposed on them, but according to US law and precedent, they would not be held criminally liable.

Comey tries to clarify this point a few days later in a hearing, which can be found in this short clip posted on YouTube by the WSJ. It’s short. 1m40s.

As he says, the only case that rests solely on the “gross negligence” of classified information is one involving espionage. Here is a Politico article that goes into more detail on that other case. I guess everyone can make up their own mind about how it compares to Clinton’s case, but it seems to me to be a different sort of beast.

As I phrased it in a post on a previous thread: To prosecute Clinton, the Justice Department would be defining new legal precedent, new boundaries for the law’s application. Not criminally prosecuting her isn’t treating her differently than other citizens under the eyes of the law; it’s actually treating her the same, which is ultimately what we want for our society, and for justice more broadly.

@Soubresaut & @LostInParadise – Let me give you some first hand information about how the government deals with people that mishandle classified materials. I was in the navy and held a top secret clearance. To get that clearance, I had to attend schools in which every scrap of paper was stamped “Confidential”. If a piece of paper was misplaced or left where it was not a secure location, it was considered a violation of security and the person that did it was punished, usually a bust in rank at the minimum. And we aren’t talking secrets. We are talking about material that you could get out of a college text book. But it was classified materials because it was designated as such. Intent to misplace it had no bearing at all, as it doesn’t for most crimes. It was the act which showed a disregard for the security of our nation. Hillary lost control of way more than one piece of classified materials. From Politifact:
“In total, the investigation found 110 emails in 52 email chains containing information that was classified at the time it was sent or received. Eight chains contained top secret information, the highest level of classification, 36 chains contained secret information, and the remaining eight contained confidential information.” And these were items that were not classified later on…they were classified when she was sending them. As the Secretary of State, she should have a much better understanding of how to handle top secret or secret or confidential material. In fact, she did, she opted to ignore the laws. Willfully sending top secret materials to others that may not be cleared to see it over an unsecure system is a felony. @Zenvelo wanted an example of felonious acts…there you have it.
Comey was in a position in which Loretta Lynch was not going to prosecute Hillary regardless of the findings. So he basically had to word the findings in a way that excused her. Again from Politifact, we get this statement from Comey:”“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation,” Comey said of some of the top secret chains.” That is a polite way of saying that she mishandled Top Secret materials and knew it, but wasn’t going to get prosecuted.
And again, @Soubresaut, please show me in any law where intent to break was a factor. If you aren’t paying attention and start driving 15 mph over the limit and a cop stops you, does intent play into the breaking of the law? If you stick a gun into a store clerks face to rob his store and you accidentally shoot him, does the fact you didn’t “intend” to shoot him mean you shouldn’t be charged for doing it? The only time I can think of when intent plays into a charge is manslaughter where you obviously didn’t mean to kill someone. But you are still getting charged for their death. What happened with Hillary was pure political hokum that just showed the world how corrupt DC really is.

So you prosecute her for carelessness? Do you suppose Clinton attended all of those classes the navy required of you? Isn’t the most sensible explanation the one where Clinton is a woman of a certain age who wouldn’t know a secure server from a manhole cover? And don’t fool yourself about intent being irrelevant when establishing grounds for prosecution.

But there will be no question about intent when the axe falls on Trump. All of this crying foul is pretty much recognition that once Trump’s business doings are subjected to scrutiny it’s “Game Over”. It’s an open secret that Trump was desperate for money since no legitimate bank was willing to front him cash. The banks had learned their lessons. It is an established fact that Russian kleptocrats laundered plundered money through acquiring real estate in Trump’s hotels, purchasing entire floors in Trump properties, and running criminal enterprises from most of them. All of this bullshit about Trump being ruthlessly hounded as an excuse to unload him is nothing but smoke. The truth is that there is absolutely no way to get to the bottom of Russian meddling in the election without arriving at the door of the man intended to benefit from that meddling. It’s just that simple.

With everyone on this thread throwing around “facts,” let’s just be patient and see what sticks…

@stanleybmanley . Hillary shouldn’t have been in that position, if she was incapable of understanding the technology. That being said, I think she did destroy incriminating evidence. But, it is irrelevant to this thread.

No matter how loud they scream, or point at Hillary and Obama it doesn’t change what they will/won’t find on Trump…

Trump has been getting really hot under the collar, so I hope that points to his understanding the inevitability of them finding some dirt…

He has his hands full. In his defense, he clearly does not understand his job nor those of the people around him. I imagine his personal lawyers have by now apprised him of just how deep a hole he has dug for himself.

In a sense, it really is unfair. Just try to visualize a scene of Trump in conversation with some Russian bigwig.

R: we’ve hacked up some juicy incriminating dirt from Hillary’s computers. Do you want it?

D: no, not me. It’s against my principles.

Egah, I’m just wordy today. I shrunk this all to “whisper” to take up less space… Sorry again for length.

@seawulf575—Could I ask a favor? Do you happen know/have the legal codes/numbers (or whatever they’re called) for the felony/felonies that the FBI was investigating? Wading through all the different codes confuses me, and I haven’t been able to figure out which specific ones are being applied, so I’ve been relying almost entirely on Comey’s testimony to understand the legal context surrounding the issue. He has said that intent is a factor, so I’m taking him at his word.
 
I guess the codes themselves still wouldn’t tell me about the precedent/context, but I certainly don’t have the legal background to churn through all of that… so if someone could point me to the specific legal phrasing, then at least I can see that part of it first hand, and that would actually be great.
 
I’m also not very familiar with how the Navy handles classified information. Is “a bust in rank” a criminal punishment? I do recall that Comey said Hillary should be “subject to security or administrative sanctions,” which to be honest doesn’t look great for a Presidential candidate—a President needs to be able to have a security clearance, for instance… But the way I read the statement: According to Comey’s judgment, the issue/issues around Hillary’s private server should be dealt with, but didn’t rise to the level of criminal prosecution.
 
I have gone down the mental path of well, what if Comey only said what he did as a way to give a semblance of credibility to Lynch’s decision? as I’ve been trying to make sense of everything. But I didn’t feel that it held up to scrutiny.

In later testimony about the FBI’s Russia investigation and his own firing, Comey was fairly critical of Lynch. He indicated his staunch disapproval of how Lynch conducted herself during the Clinton server investigation—including her meeting Bill Clinton, and her request that Comey call the investigation a “matter”—and he, Comey, worried that Lynch’s actions either did indicate DOJ partiality, or might give the appearance of DOJ partiality… not good in either case. When he gave his statement, he deliberately broke DOJ/FBI protocols to demonstrate his own investigation’s independence, and the FBI’s independence as a whole. Nothing in the way he talked about Lynch indicated (to me, anyway) a man who would be in cahoots with her, let alone kowtow to demands to simply “let” Hillary off.

Comey wasn’t under any obligation to find Hillary excused of anything. He was likewise under no obligation to make a public statement (in fact, protocol indicated he would make no public statement on the issue). And yet he chose to, and to do so without any sort of prior warning to the DOJ. I don’t see why he couldn’t have, if he felt the investigation warranted it, publicly recommend prosecution and then leave that ball in Lynch’s court to deal with.

No one was happy about his statement. Anti-Hillary proponents were angry because she wasn’t going to prison. Hillary supporters were angry because his scolding did little to publicly absolve her handling of the servers; he basically said to the country: a bad but not criminal idea is still a bad idea. And in his Russia investigation testimony, he said that he didn’t know whether Hillary would have kept him on as head of the FBI or not had she won the election, given his public involvement in her investigation. He didn’t win any favors for his statement, and I don’t see where he expected to—why would he put himself in the position he did, unless he honestly believed that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”?

@Soubresaut 18 USC 793, specifially item (f) applies to the Hillary case. it states:

”(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

And isn’t that what Comey came out and said? It was gross negligence? That the classified materials were out of their proper place of custody? And I really don’t see in there where it talks about intent. And as a US Citizen, she falls under this statute.

In the Navy there are several levels of punishment. For instance, if I stamped a blank piece of paper “Confidential” and then threw it into a normal, uncontrolled garbage can, I might not get thrown under the jail. I would probably go to Captain’s Mast which is considered a non-judicial punishment. At that venue, the commanding officer has discretion. He can drop the whole thing, he can confine you to quarters, he can remove rank (which is a demotion and carries a loss of pay). If I took that same piece of paper, stamped it “Top Secret” and put all sorts of actual top secret material and then threw it away or gave it to someone not authorized to receive it, I would go to a courts martial. That is the military version of superior court. A panel of three judges hear the case and decide your fate. Typically if you end up in a courts martial, you are getting some sort of punishment that could include loss of rank, discharge from the military (under not good conditions), or imprisonment, depending on the merits of the case. The same would go if I took Top Secret material and copied it over onto another, unmarked, piece of paper and then tossed it or gave it away. That would probably bring you a stiffer penalty because you knowingly and willfully mishandled it, or at the very least showed you are grossly incompetent.
Your analysis of Comey’s statements is missing one important factor: Who was his boss? When Lynch was his direct boss, and he knew she was not going to prosecute Hillary no matter what, he would be in the situation of coming out and saying Hillary is a crook and then being fired or he could say she was a criminal but didn’t have intent. Remember, you are talking about politics. You are talking about one of the most lawless administrations of all time. Once Lynch was no longer in his food chain, he could, without fear of repercussion, speak more freely. I don’t believe he was “in cahoots” with Lynch, but I believe he recognized a no-win scenario with coming out and saying Hillary was a crook. Lynch STILL wouldn’t have prosecuted her and Comey would be punished. Also, remember that there were FBI agents that were angry about Comey’s statement that let Hillary off. They recognized the crime, recognized the intent, recognized the enormity of letting Hillary walk.

What “enormity”? The worst result of Clinton’s negligence, other than getting Trump elected, is this endless discussion about it. For mercy sake, it is over. There were no serious consequences. Let’s move on.

Fellow Republican Lindsey Graham says that firing Mueller “could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, unless Mueller did something wrong.” Graham is going to introduce a bill that would require judicial review before a president could fire someone investigating him or a member of his staff. It is nice to see some congressional assertion of power. All the Democrats are surely going to support this. Graham just needs two more Republicans to pass the bill, which I think he should be able to find. Trump certainly seems to be concerned that something rotten is going to turn up. The more he complains, the more reason there is to go after him.

The enormity is that it sets in stone what we already knew…that there are two sets of laws in this country. One for the ruling elite and one for everyone else. Hillary committed crimes that would have put any common person in jail. And they had to create a non-existent “intent” clause to get her off. Additionally, it allowed her to continue to run for president where the DNC stacked the deck against Sanders to ensure she was the nominee. Imagine if someone as “negligent” about national security was elected president. The dual standard is enormous because it points to the total corruption of our government. I’m more than a little concerned that there is still so much support for a criminal because she is a ruling Dem.

@seawulf575 When Clinton became secretary of state the Federal Records Act said that officials using personal email accounts must ensure that official correspondence is turned over to the government. Clinton said she complied with this as most of her emails went to people with government accounts and were automatically archived. This defence is a little dubious however all her emails were turned over to State Department officials in October 2014.

The State Department inspector general report, released in May 2016, found that Mrs Clinton’s email system violated government policy and that she did not receive permission prior to instituting it – approval that would not have been granted had she asked. Such transgressions, however, do not constitute criminal conduct.

FBI director James Comey announced the results of a separate FBI investigation on 5 July 2016 and concluded that that while “there is evidence of potential violations” of criminal statues covering the mishandling of classified information, “our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case”. It referred the matter to the Justice Department, which closed the case against Mrs Clinton and her aides with no charges.

Mrs Clinton is far from alone. Other politicians and officials – both in federal and state governments – sometimes have relied on personal email for official business. Colin Powell, secretary of state under President George W Bush, told ABC he used a personal email account while in office, including to correspond with foreign leaders.

Politicians don’t always like everything they say to go on the record and it seems to me using personal emails might permit more candid and effective communication than official channels. This is wrong of course but it is understandable and it is not criminal or malicious.

@seawulf575 . If we remove Hillary, and Obama from the debate, as there is no relevance, what are your intentions in this thread?

If you care SO much about the “crimes” from other people, Trump’s behavior should trouble you.

Are you seriously insinuating that immoral, illegal behavior is only of interest, if it is done by a dem?

@seawulf575 Thank you for pointing me directly to the relevant code, especially the section of the code that doesn’t mention “intent” anywhere. I wasn’t confident in how to search for it myself, so I’m glad for the help.

As to your question of “where’s it say ‘intent’?” I can only go by what Comey said. I do notice, however, that he used the phrase “extremely careless,” rather than “gross negligence.” I’m not sure if that’s a meaningful distinction or not, and I guess that’s up for debate.

According to Cornell Law’s resource, the legal definition of “gross negligence” is: A lack of care that demonstrates reckless disregard for the safety or lives of others, which is so great it appears to be a conscious violation of other people’s rights to safety. It is more than simple inadvertence, and can affect the amount of damages.

I think the wording “a conscious violation” may well imply intent—which is to say, may well imply intentional negligence—in a way that the phrasing “extreme carelessness” may or may not, depending on who’s defining it. Comey’s statements on the issue indicate, to me, that he did not mean the two phrases (gross negligence and extreme carelessness) to be synonyms. But I suppose that’s me mincing hairs.

I choose to take Comey at his word. His word has been consistent over time; the only change has been the number of details he has shared publicly, and as he has shared them, they have pulled past events together in ways that seem more credible than not.

Lynch was no longer Comey’s boss as of Jan 20, and he was fired May 9—for four months he worked under an administration that would have been quite happy for a reason to prosecute Hillary, and yet his conclusions on her case remained steadfastly the same. Additionally, he showed himself (once again) quite willing to conduct an investigation that would upset members of the current administration, ultimately at the cost of his job, and even then he demonstrated his ability to shore up that investigation in his absence, releasing an unclassified memo in order to prompt the appointment of a special counsel. I don’t see, in his actions, a man who’s willing to bend his investigations for the sake of politics. I think, actually, that I see the opposite… perhaps that’s a mark of my naivete.

(Sorry for again pressing on this point.)

I read that pardoning himself is an indication of guilt.

@flutherother I think you need to do a little more research. Hillary claimed she turned over all her emails. Then a whole other batch showed up so she “turned” them over…since they were seized. Then another batch showed up. That happened over a 2 year period. In those emails was top secret information, secret information, and other levels of classified materials that were classified at the time she was sending them. That was the “potential violations” to which Comey spoke. Massive understatement. There were other items that were classified after she sent them, which is why it is strongly recommended that the government server be used so they can better track where this information goes.
As for other political entities using private servers, I will stand by my current opinion. If they are not using the approved, protected servers and they end up mishandling classifed materials, they too should be prosecuted. I have no take with party. I am against stupidity and corruption in our nation’s leaders.

@MrGrimm888 I believe that Hillary and Obama are relevant as examples of where many on this site have tolerated far worse violations than anything that Trump has done. In other words, they are entirely biased which is pretty much the summation of my very first comment on this thread. Since then, I have been responding to comments from others that have responded and in some cases attacked me.
I do care about crimes AND corruption. But right now, Trump has committed none. Yet all the Trump haters cannot come to terms with that. Is he undignified, boorish, and somewhat childish? Yup…no argument there. But which of those is a crime? The whole Russia thing? We’ve already had several high ranking intelligence personnel come out and publicly state that Trump was not involved and had no knowledge of it. They said that under oath. Yet apparently that isn’t enough to quell the hatred and innuendo. Someone challenged me earlier to list any crimes Obama had committed. I listed around 40. So I will issue the same challenge to you, since you claim Trump has done criminal activities. Name them.

@seawulf575 I am pleased to hear you are “against stupidity and corruption in our nation’s leaders” and would like to know how exactly you reconcile that view with your apparent support for Trump.

@seawulf575 . When did I claim Trump committed crimes?

I’m sure he has, but if you read some of my posts I have stated that I believe that ALL politicians who rise to that level have most likely committed a litany of crimes. From your posts, I deduce you aren’t stupid. Surely you don’t honestly believe the whole “everyone is out to smear Trump” crap?

As I’ve also stated before. There’s definitely someone smearing him. Trump himself, with his childish twitter tirades, and poorly chosen public declarations.

Is pussy grabbing a crime?...

@flutherother If you look back you will see I’m not a huge Trump fan. But I don’t understand all the hatred towards him. The thing I like most about Trump is that he turned the political game that has been going on in this country on its ear. Career politicians had established a game in which the rules are stacked against anyone that wants to change the game. Trump beat that. The MSM has gotten to the point where most of what is being reported is so skewed to the left that they are a detriment to this country. Trump took that on as well. Those are the things I like the most about Trump. But I further reconcile my statement with the fact that so far, he has not shown corruption (I know…he appointed a few rich guys to positions….big deal. Most presidents do). And while I think his stupidity consists of childish behavior (which is another thing I have stated repeatedly), I don’t believe he is a stupid person. You don’t like Trump…I get that. I didn’t like Obama, Bush, Clinton or Bush. But I didn’t just make up stuff in my mind to try spreading hatred against them, which is what it seems a lot of Trump haters do. They talk about impeachment and even this thread started with a question about if he could pardon himself. And my big question, the one that really has NOT been answered so far by a single Trump hater, is…impeach him for what? Pardon himself for what? There has been no crime. If it turns out that, while president, he commits some actual worthy crime, I will also be saying he should be impeached. But until that happens, it’s all just mindless, partisan hatred.

It is Trump that suggested pardoning himself. Why would he do that if there was nothing to be pardoned for?

@MrGrimm888 let me quote you:

“If you care SO much about the “crimes” from other people, Trump’s behavior should trouble you.
Are you seriously insinuating that immoral, illegal behavior is only of interest, if it is done by a dem?”

Yes, I do care about crimes from other people. So what about Trump has been a crime? Immoral and ILLEGAL behavior is done by all sorts of people, not just Dems. But again, in the context of your statement, you are implying that Trump has done that. So the challenge still stands. Name his crimes. Don’t worry, I don’t actually expect you to try since haters just spew hatred and don’t worry about silly things like facts.

Yes, I do buy into that “everyone is out to smear Trump” stuff. Except it isn’t everybody. It’s really just the corrupt establishment pols and the liberal media. And it comes back to their reaction to Obama. Think what would have happened if they (the media and the establishment pols) worked this hard to impeach Obama while he was in office committing ACTUAL crimes. Since they didn’t, the logical conclusion is that they just want to smear Trump. Now I do agree that his Twitter tirades don’t help his standing, but even those wouldn’t be going on if the media would accurately report what he had to say. He started using Twitter as a way of reaching the people without having to go through a media that either skews their reporting or refuses to report things that might not be in line with their ideology. Think about all that is going on and what you have heard from the media. Has there been a single actual crime that Trump has committed? Or has it really just been hyped up innuendo put out by career politicians over the corrupt media airwaves?

Is Pussy Grabbing a crime? Potentially. I grab my wife every so often and so far she likes it. If I did it to a stranger it could be construed as sexual assault, if the woman presses charges. But again…let’s look at the facts. Has Trump actually done that? No. He said he would in a certain circumstance but so far, no one has actually come out and legitimately said he did. In fact many women that work with him say he is great. But Trump has not done that, so even bringing it up is nothing more than innuendo…again. An attempt to smear Trump. Is he crass? Sure. But he has not done the pussy grabbing. And you are implying he has. Meanwhile, I have to question…did you have the same sort of statements about Bill Clinton who was elbow deep in actual sexual assault accusations? Juanita Brodderick accused Bill of raping her. Kathleen Wiley accused him of groping her (pussy grabbing), and Paula Jones said he exposed himself to her and sexually harassed her. That doesn’t include the two consensual women (Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky) and the unconfirmed women brought to him via Troopergate. But all that seems to be acceptable behavior since you don’t seem to see any correlation between that and Trump crudely stating he could grope a woman. Or, to paraphrase your earlier comment to me “Are you seriously insinuating that immoral, illegal behavior is only of interest, if it is done by a Republican?”

^Sounds like you’re turned around in your own head. Please read your own posts. Then imagine it was another jelly. You remind me of an abused wife sticking up for her abusive husband… Carry on defending your/our oppressor.

If there’s one thing I now understand about Trump supporters, it’s that he is beyond any level of criticism. Even though his own rhetoric is providing the substance that paints him in such a negative light. And indeed his own behavior. You don’t tweet to the world that you could pardon your family, and yourself if you aren’t implying self guilt. Do you think Trump just offered that declarative statement out of the blue? No. He trumpeted it after speaking with his lawyers. Why was he speaking to them about pardoning? Gee. I wonder. Statements, such as Trump makes, are admissions of guilt. He’s just too stupid to stop blithering on…

Pussy grabbing.

“I grab my wife every so often, and so far she likes it.” LOL. I could have written that for you. Sounds like a Trump household.

“If I did it to a stranger it could be construed as sexual assault. ” Uh. No. That is the definition of sexual assault. Wheather or not charges are pressed.

“But he has not done the pussy grabbing. And you’re implying he has.” Wrong again. Trump clearly was the one implying that. And he sounded quite pleased with himself.

Ok. Now say something about Obama, or Hillary, or Bill.

Congratulations! You follow the same playbook as every other Trump supporter.

1.Get mad.

2.Say whatever you heard is fake.

3.Stick up for Trump’s rhetoric, as if he’s a genius saying things in riddle.

4.Try to deflect attention to a Democrat that has nothing to do with anything. Obama is easiest, because Trump supporters hate him the most. (Wonder why?)

5.Pat yourself on the back, knowing nobody can see through the strategy.

Trump supporter list completed.

Yawn…. Very unoriginal…

@seawulf I can understand the appearance that “haters” are out to get Trump. There is an unprecedented never ending drone of fault finding when it comes to Trump, and because of it, one might conclude that those opposed to him are “piling on”. But for those inclined to dismiss our President’s “eccentricities” as the insignificant quirks of an otherwise strong and capable leader, the reasoning won’t hold. The problem with this explanation shifts into focus with consideration of the cumulative pile of gaffes and missteps and the President’s reaction to their effects and consequences. Things were going South with the country, which is why Trump managed elevation to the office. The tragedy around Trump isn’t so much about his visions for the country, many of which are shared by his supporters and detractors alike. To our great peril, it turns out that Trump lacks an even rudimentary understanding of the government he now heads, and more to the point, is apparently unable or unwilling to learn. The obvious remedey (which you suggest) is to appoint capable and knowledgeable people in pursuit of his vision. But he will never pull it off. His enormous and unrelenting ego will not tolerate such a situation. To begin with, the man knows so little about the requirements or functioning of his government that he is incapable of recognizing sound advice if it slaps him in the face. To compound this glaring trait, he consistently strives mightily in defying the dictates associated with basic common sense. For example, how many times do you suppose the people closest to him have begged him to “for God’s sake PLEASE stop tweeting.”? But it’s when you couple these deficiencies with the fact that no capable person will be allowed to work for Trump if said individual garners a thimble full of attention more than himself that you begin to underststand that we are in serious trouble.

@seawulf575 I don’t hate Trump, I just think he is in the wrong job and is causing great harm to a country I have a lot of respect for and may yet cause it a great deal more harm.

@flutherother the saddest part is that Congress and the Media haven’t given him a chance to do a good job and won’t start now. From before his swearing in ceremony, they have been discussing his impeachment. I don’t care who the president is, if that is the treatment they get, they will not succeed and, indeed, great harm will be brought to the country.

Trump made his own bed….

@MrGrimm888 You continue to support my statements AND prove your closed mind. Typical liberal. I have gone back to my very first post on this thread and re-read them. I have remained constant throughout. That you don’t want to see that is not my problem, it is yours. My very first post pointed out that I would be happy to support punishing Trump if he did something wrong, but that so far he hasn’t. I have challenged all you liberal Trump haters to list the crime for which he should be punished and in true liberal fashion, you dodge, deflect, change topic….everything except actually coughing up a charge. The best you can do is innuendo…such as what you did with your latest attack on me. Trump tweets about pardoning and that is a crime? It points to a crime? And he discussed it with his attorneys? Really? That is a solid charge in your mind? Now on to the rest of your idiotic attack.

”“I grab my wife every so often, and so far she likes it.” LOL. I could have written that for you. Sounds like a Trump household.” Either you aren’t married or are in a frigid relationship or you are entirely gay without a partner that has a pussy. It’s funny how healthy marriages involve good sex which does involve pussy grabbing sometimes. Yet being a true liberal hater you will try twisting anything into a slam on Trump or his supporters, no matter how silly you look doing it.

”“If I did it to a stranger it could be construed as sexual assault. ” Uh. No. That is the definition of sexual assault. Wheather or not charges are pressed.” Unless it is consensual. That is where you slip on your logic. In your effort to spew hatred, you drop short of actually looking at all the options. Technically, the very first kiss you have with a girl (if you kiss girls…fit in boy if not) could be the definition of sexual assault in your logic. Apparently the recipient’s reaction has no bearing on things to you….as long as you are trying to make a point. Sad.

”“But he has not done the pussy grabbing. And you’re implying he has.” Wrong again. Trump clearly was the one implying that. And he sounded quite pleased with himself.” Go back and read the thread again and then apply real reality, not liberal reality. Trump talked about what could be done with Hollywood stars, not what he had done. He was joking with an interviewer. Tacky? Absolutely. Crude? Yep. A crime? Not at all. Yet in your effort to brand him as a criminal you ask if Pussy Grabbing is a crime, implying he had actually had. To put the conversation in context, you were ranting about Trump being a criminal and I challenged you to name the crime. You then tried claiming you never said he had committed a crime (which I slapped you with already) and then slipped in at the end “Is pussy grabbing a crime?...” Sorry…when reality and facts start coming to the surface, all your liberal efforts to lie about things fall all apart.
I don’t need to say a thing about Obama, Hillary, or Bill on this response. I merely need to point out your idiocy.

And finally on to your list:
1.Get mad. – I haven’t gotten mad yet. I try not to do personal attacks until someone attacks me and then I usually bury them with logic and facts. And the funny part…the ones that usually attack me are the liberals that realize their own logic is faulty and they can’t admit error so they make personal attacks in an effort to try shutting that person up.
2.Say whatever you heard is fake. – When have I stated that what I heard was fake? I haven’t. In fact, let’s go back to the beginning of the “fake news” hooey. It was started by liberals to try shutting down any website that put out a story that differed from what the MSM was putting out. The fact that Trump picked it up and started using it against the MSM and did so effectively isn’t my problem. But I do want to point out this is another liberal trick in debate: create something about your opponent and then try slamming them with that fiction.
3.Stick up for Trump’s rhetoric, as if he’s a genius saying things in riddle. – Again…where have I stuck up for his rhetoric? Another example of a liberal creating something and then trying to blast his opponent with it.
4.Try to deflect attention to a Democrat that has nothing to do with anything. Obama is easiest, because Trump supporters hate him the most. (Wonder why?) My mentions of Hillary and Obama and Bill have been only to point out that all the things that liberals (such as yourself) are trying to pin on Trump were perpetrated by your liberal heroes multiple times. And yet I’d bet a shiny new dollar that you supported them and attacked anyone that dared to call them out. In fact, this statement by you is a prime example of your hypocrisy. Obama did nothing but blame Bush for 7 years. And liberals went right along with it like happy little lemmings. Now you want to slam anyone that dares to go back and point out anything the former president did. Hypocrisy. And Trump supporters do hate him, but not for any reason your small mind would think or at least be able to vocalize. I already did it for you and you STILL are in denial. He was a criminal. I pointed out about 40 examples of where he violated the Constitution. All impeachable offenses and yet Dems/liberals supported him so nothing could happen to him. Meanwhile his policies dragged this country down. Hillary is no better.
5.Pat yourself on the back, knowing nobody can see through the strategy. – And here I am pointing out how I am seeing through your strategy. Sad. Get some wit from somewhere other than the Dollar Tree and come on back.
Liberal list completed.

@seawulf575 Trump is the most powerful man in America right now and possibly the world. No excuses, ‘the buck stops here’.

Lol. He thinks I’m a liberal, because I have common sense.

Oh. And “I haven’t gotten mad yet..”..

Is that why you called me gay? Because you treat your wife a certain way? If I don’t grab pussies, I’m gay? You really fit the Trump supporter mold… Something to be proud of…. yawn…

@stanleybmanly You are close to the truth. But let me put a small twist on things for your consideration. You correctly state that there is an unprecedented never ending drone of fault finding with Trump. That is 100% correct and goes back to much of what I have been saying all along. But here’s a bit where I differ from your thinking a little bit. We agree the country was going in the wrong direction which is what allowed Trump to get elected. But a large part of that goes back to the corruption in our government. And it is that corruption that the people were actually voting against. With that in mind, I cannot support that any president we elect should have to fit back into that same corrupt way of doing things just to “be effective”. I see that as a contradiction. If the problem is the corruption (which I believe it is), to continue to embrace that same corrupt way of doing things will change nothing. And unfortunately, the MSM is part of the corruption. They have been attacking Trump since the first day he announced his candidacy. It only ramped up as he gained in the polls. It didn’t ease up when he was elected. So unfortunately, he was left with having to use social media to reach the people without the filter of the biased media. I will give him credit for finding a solution to the propaganda wing of the Democratic party, but I do agree with you that his continued use of it and his personal attacks on others belittles him. I do like some of Trump’s ideas and I really do believe that he has the strength of will to hold true to them, despite the attacks on him. But I believe that until more people are willing to take a step back and look at where the real problems lie, we will get nowhere. I can sum up what I see as the problems in our country right now. Establishment pols (please note I’m not limiting it to one party) are happy with the corruption they have cultivated for decades and don’t want to change. They are getting rich off it. The MSM has skewed so far to the left that most of what they put out is either an out and out lie or so partially reported as to be useless. It has become propaganda that supports the corruption in DC. And Trump dropping below the line and making personal attacks on Twitter and in fact just using Twitter to air his random thoughts and opinions attacks his respectability.

@MrGrimm888 You continue to show the world what a liberal you are. Yes, I believe you are a liberal but certainly not because of your common sense which would only be common to liberals. I think you are a liberal because you make innuendo and treat it as fact. I think you are a liberal because you start in with personal attacks when someone disagrees with you and has logical reasons for their opinion. I think you are a liberal because regardless of how out to lunch you are you cannot once suggest that you might be even a little off base. I think you are a liberal because you follow the same method of debate that every other liberal I have debated uses.
And no, I didn’t call you gay. I gave one of three possibilities for why you might not grab your wife’s pussy, one of which was that you were gay and didn’t have a wife that had a pussy. But in typical liberal fashion, you take part of a statement out of context and assign some evil intent onto me for your created meaning. You continue to prove what a flaming liberal you are. Continue on over the cliff, little lemming.

^That’s another far right trait. The inability to accept accountability…
I noticed that you added the word “flaming” to liberal too. Nice.

Where did I personally attack you? You brought your wife’s pussy into this….. I commented on your comment…..

Go back 5 of your posts and you can see where you started the personal attacks. Why is it that liberals cannot face reality? All I had to do was go back up the line of posts to call your bluff or your attempt at altering reality. That is a typical liberal trait which you call inability to accept accountability. Projectionism is another.

I.don’t consider that a personal attack.
5 posts ago I mentioned my assessment of the right strategy. You displayed all of this.

Then you tried to piggy back a “liberal” check list, which didn’t make sense, and was simply reactionary to my original posts. Not original, in and of itself.

I’m not sure how it could be seen as anything other than further cementing my previous observations…

Your just plagiarizing my comments now, and changing like one word…

Is that the limit of your debate skill?

Let me help you since you obviously can’t recognize when you are attacking someone personally.

” You remind me of an abused wife sticking up for her abusive husband… ”

”“I grab my wife every so often, and so far she likes it.” LOL. I could have written that for you. Sounds like a Trump household.”

“Congratulations! You follow the same playbook as every other Trump supporter.
1.Get mad.
2.Say whatever you heard is fake.
3.Stick up for Trump’s rhetoric, as if he’s a genius saying things in riddle.
4.Try to deflect attention to a Democrat that has nothing to do with anything. Obama is easiest, because Trump supporters hate him the most. (Wonder why?)
5.Pat yourself on the back, knowing nobody can see through the strategy.
Trump supporter list completed.
Yawn…. Very unoriginal…”

As I said before…I don’t go into personal attacks until someone in the chat attacks me first. After that I have no problem showing the world what an idiot you are. Oh, and by the way, in another typical liberal move, you never have listed a single crime that Trump has committed. Dodging…another liberal game. Innuendo is all you have…another liberal game. So far all you have is innuendo and personal attacks followed up by lots of dodging and projectionism. Pretty sad and sadly typical of liberals.

Go ahead…try to dodge again. Don’t actually admit you were maybe even a little wrong. Continue the personal attacks. Let the whole world see what a fool you are….I’ll wait. I’m pretty sure you won’t let me down.

More plagerism.

What am I dodging? Did you not say that you grabbed your wife’s pussy? And in a manor suggesting similarities to Trump’s claims? Come on…

These are NOT my words, but your own, and Trump’s. Deny those facts…

Knew I wouldn’t have to wait long. Thanks for confirming my assessment of you. Later, lemming.

^You’re welcome ;)

@seawulf575 I have serious problems with the assertion that Trump’s difficulties with negative press are due to some leftist bias in the mainstream media. There is an unfortunate tendency prevalent in the country to view the reporting of facts unfavorable to ideological positions as “biased”. Thus, the torrent of unrelenting Trump bloopers is dismissed by his fans merely because they are trumpeted from the mainstream media. The critical issue of Mr. Trump’s competence and psychological fitness is bypassed in preference to pointing fingers at the press. Did you ever notice that as Trump’s behavior grows ever more peculiar, the accusations of left wing press bias intensify?

@stanleybmanly As I have stated many times in this and other threads, I don’t know what sort of president Trump will be. I have doubts about him as well. But with the media and the establishment pols doing everything they can to try bringing him down, he will never do anything. And yes, the media has a huge liberal bias. It comes out when they doctor videos to push the liberal agenda, it comes out when they totally ignore stories that would go against the liberal agenda, and it comes out when they over focus on meaningless things in an effort to create a story for the liberal agenda. Some and/or all of those things have been done to Trump. Some of them he has called them on and they have had to back off. This same fervor was never applied to Hillary or Obama because they support the liberal agenda, even though it was demonstrative that they broke the law. In fact, the exact opposite. They called websites that tried reporting on those crimes “Fake News” and even Obama tried to censor them. That alone should be enough to draw all sorts of criticism, but it didn’t. The MSM supported censorship based on political opinion as a viable option and something we should go for. How different would history have been if the media actually did its job and tried to hold ALL politicians accountable for their actions?
Trump has his issues, that is a fact. Pretty much every president we have had dealt with issues..some more and some less. But so far, all that has happened is a barrage of bogus accusations and innuendos and we, the Americans, are letting the government waste time and money on these things instead of actually doing something about the myriad of problems in this country. You don’t like Trump because you feel he Tweets too much and blows off when you think he shouldn’t? God love you, I support that entirely. But all this effort, money, and time is being wasted trying to create some non-existent crime that Trump has done so impeachment can go forward. The fact that Congress and the media are starting with impeachment and then trying to back feed the story to make it so should be a key that this is a witch hunt and a huge waste of resources.

@seawulf575 This same fervor was never applied to Hillary or Obama because they support the liberal agenda,

Look at the history of this country over the past 30 years or so. From the time of the 1992 mid term elections, and the “Contract on With America” there has been a concerted effort, starting with the Conservative movement at that time, to resist compromise. This e “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude has produced the polarization we see in our country today, and has moved the perceived moderate center extremely to the right, so that even a moderate liberal like Obama is perceived as a radical progressive. This is the same mood that led to the impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton. The original charges had no traction, so they had to impeach him for lying to Congress. Not excusable, but not by itself an impeachable offense. After the Clinton Presidency, when Hillary decided to enter politics, she was hindered every step of the way the same media you see as “liberally biased”. She has been accused tried, and found guilty in the press, but _there have never been any charges formally brought, and therefore no conviction”.

The same “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude “if I compromise I lose” is what has led to the last quarter-century of congressional obstructionism.

Pay attention to your history, unless you want to repeat it.

@Strauss While I will fully agree with the fact that our government is polarized, I would put forth a couple other facts on the items you listed, for your consideration. Bill Clinton was charged with perjury AND Obstruction of Justice. He was impeached on both but the Senate didn’t vote to remove him from office. Here’s the interesting thing about that vote. You talk about refusal to compromise, yet it was the vote of 10 REPUBLICAN senators that made sure he stayed in office. If Repubs did the same as Dems, they would have voted party lines and Clinton would have been ejected. Not a single Dem in either the House or the Senate voted against Clinton.
As for the media hindering Hillary, I would love to see some examples of that. Even when there was things that she should have been put under the microscope for, the MSM only gave a cursory report and let it drop. So please, if you have some examples of where they really laid into her and would let go (such as what they are doing to Trump) please show me.

What Bill did was morally wrong, by our standard. It’s not the same thing as colluding with the enemy. It didn’t put every American in danger.

@seawulf575 there’s one aspect that you miss about Clinton’s impeachment that those 10 Republican Senators had the good sense to recognize. And that is that Clinton was impeached for strictly political reasons, and that any further proceedings toward unseating him would have resulted in a can of worms that would devour the Senate and betray the truly hypocritical nature of Clinton’s impeachment.

@stanleybmanly Not sure I would call his lying under oath and attempting to obstruct justice as strictly political reasons. If that is the case then aren’t they going after Trump for even less? There is less evidence of Trump obstructing justice and none of him perjuring himself. So by that logic, by your own description, does that mean that the Dems, the establishment Repubs, and the MSM are all showing bad sense? And doesn’t all this effort show the truly hypocritical nature of the efforts to impeach Trump? My point in all this is that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t look at what Clintons and Obama did and act like it is meaningless while being adamant that Trump should be impeached. If you truly feel Trump has committed crimes worthy of impeachment, I fully support your right to that opinion. But if you are supporting Bill, Hillary and Obama then I reserve the right to see and call out the hypocrisy in that.

What I’m saying, and those 10 Republicans recognize is that the Congress has no business impeaching ANYONE for sexual activities which do not violate the law. It is the GROUNDS for impeachment in Clinton’s case that were out of line and destined for certain overturning by the Supreme Court. The fools who stupidly brought the issue to fruition missed the point that it’s an extremely bad idea to prosecute ANYONE for
lying about a blow job. There is no way in hell that Clinton could be removed from office on the charges listed in view of the history of sexual activities in the White House, and the very attempt would place every man in the Congress with a mistress or sexual past in immediate peril.

But back to Trump. I am not going to argue that the system isn’t rigged to favor insiders. What I am going to argue is that anyone looking for dirt on Trump will not have to follow the convoluted path the right has INVENTED with the hope of smearing Obama or Clinton. Believe me, there is clearly no love for either of them in the Republican dominated Congress which investigated Clinton damned near to distraction. And if the evidence against Trump proves as murky, the Donald will walk as well.

And no evidence of perjury or obstruction of justice? This whole uproar over Trump being looked at is in the state it is in because even Trump’s most ardent fans recognize that there is absolutely no way he can survive close inspection. Let’s watch and see.

@stanleybmanly Let’s be clear again…Clinton was not impeached for having extramarital sex. He was impeached for lying under oath and then attempting to block the investigation into his actions. What he lied about is insignificant…just that he lied. Had he actually come out and just admitted he got a blowjob without trying to lie about it, no perjury charges should have or could have been brought against him. And impeaching him would not have opened any of the other philanderers in Congress to anything. Unless they were put under oath and they lied about it which then stops being about their sex life and becomes about their integrity and their respect for the law. The problem his extramarital affairs bring to him has nothing to do anything except it could impact him politically, with the voters. Your attempts to change the reasons for impeachment are weak. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. You called those charges nothing more than political reasons and not worth impeaching him. Yet in the same breath you attempt to indicate that impeaching Trump for less than they had on Clinton would be right. It doesn’t make any sense and, i’m sorry, smacks of hypocrisy.
And yes…there is no evidence of Obstruction of Justice. And let me be clear once again on my stance: If evidence (not opinion or innuendo, but facts) comes to light of actual obstruction of justice charges I will be more than happy to support impeachment charges. I have an equal opportunity opinion about such things. Corrupt is corrupt, regardless of who.

^No. The hypocrisy is in your view. This type of harassment started with Starr and the Republicans trying to get something on Bill (like Stanley mentioned.) And it was absolutely on many government official’s minds, that infidelity of powerful men was perhaps in focus. And it was about a private, consented act.

Since @seawulf575 is SO enthralled by conspiracy theories, it must have entertained him to see what appeared to be an obvious setup with Monica. Why else would she want,and then keep a dress with semen on it? It was a clear attempt at blackmail…

They’re all dirty crooks, out to get dirt on each other. Come on down from your high horse… Poor Mr. Trump will survive somehow. Even if he (as he himself suggests) pardons himself.

Quite a fitting, predictable end that would be for Trump.

It’s more likely that he’ll try and start a war soon, to bring his worst in history(in first 6 mos) approval ratings up… Hopefully his powers are striped before he kills more people try to help his pathetic insecurities….

@seawulf575 Once again, it isn’t that I claim the investigation of Clinton a strictly political matter. That is exactly what it was. He was impeached for perjury to embarrass him, but not removed from office. I haven’t attempted to change any reasons for his impeachment and I did categorically state that he was impeached for lying about a blow job. Your defense of Trump on the other hand is premature and pointless. I am not stating that Trump should be impeached YET. What I am saying is that whatever charges arise from these investigations, you can bet your ass that they will exceed the standard of “lying about a blow job”

And why can’t you get past this obsession that it is liberals and the msm behind these myriad investigations of Trump. Once again this is a BIPARTISAN investigation with many a staunch consevative hotly engaged in getting at the truth. And the assertion that the so called “liberal” media is engaged in a witch hunt is nothing but ludicrous smoke meant for knuckleheads too slow witted to notice the obvious. A witch hunt isn’t necessary for dirt on Trump. In view of the man’s history, it would be tougher “hunting” sand on the beach.

@stanleybmanly Here is my take on Clinton. Had he actually come out when under oath and said “yep, I had sex with that woman” The entire thing would have been defused. Instead he lied, under oath. In a court of law, that is called a felony. Then he used the power of his office to try covering it up and to block the investigation….pretty much exactly what you are accusing Trump of doing. And, BTW, I noticed you stopped trying to address that crime in Clinton’s charges. He was found guilty on both these charges and while embarrassing him was a side benefit and maybe even a driving factor, it couldn’t be done if he didn’t do the crime. In fact, the perjury charge, which you want to pooh-pooh away, wound him up with a civil charge that cost him $90,000 and loss of his license to practice law for 5 years. Apparently the courts take it seriously, even if you and others of like mind want to brush it away as insignificant. THAT is a criminal president. It was confirmed. But thanks to the Republicans not behaving like Dems, he was not thrown out of office which would have been a huge embarrassment for this nation.
And I don’t believe the MSM is behind the myriad investigations of Trump. But they are extremely biased and will either overplay stories that would drive their agenda or fail to report on those that would hurt it. Right now both CNN and MSNBC are not reporting on the investigation at all since it took a turn against the Dems, but they are trying to spout opinion as fact and innuendo and news. And let me again be perfectly clear…I would love for the media to actually do investigative journalism by looking at the whole story, not just a piece of it. And if the whole story ends up with Trump having broken the law, I will gladly support efforts to remove him from office. But again, as I have repeatedly stated, right now it is innuendo and accusations with zero proof of wrongdoing. And by your own statements, you aren’t interested in any particular charge, as long as someone can dig something up on Trump. You personify the witch hunt with that attitude.

@MrGrimm888 you continue to amuse me. You have been going off about how evil Trump is and how they will dig up something on him. But you fail to recognize with Bill that it was not Republicans that made him lie under oath. In fact, had he been honest, the whole thing would have gone away. And it certainly wasn’t the Repubs that used the power of the presidency to try blocking the investigation, a charge you are already trying to ignore. That was all Slick Willy and that is why he was impeached. I don’t have to make that up, it is just relating historical facts. And the hypocrisy to which I was referring was when Stanley was trying to write off Obstruction of Justice charges for Bill as being merely political and not worth impeachement. Yet the exact same charge he feels is well worth impeachment for Trump. You can’t have it honestly be both ways. To argue against that is hypocrisy.
As for Trump, all I have said so far is that there is a whole lot of undefined investigation going on which is nothing more than a search for something that could be used against him. That is the definition of a witch hunt. It is a waste of time and effort that could be better used to attack the problems of this country. And as I also have stated, if it popped up that Trump committed some crime as president, I would gladly support impeachment efforts. I was fully in support of impeachment of Clinton. Bush II could potentially have been impeached if he took actions in violation of the Constitution. I’ll be honest, I don’t know of any and I know there were never any charges leveled against him, but if I looked deeper I could possibly find something. And Obama did more violations of the Constitution than any other president in history. But in the case of Bush II and Obama, the corrupt congress covered for them. And this is the whole problem with our country today. Our criminal leaders are allowed to continue to break the law and our corrupt partisan politicians continue to support it. And people like you then buy into the game and try finding some reason why Dems, even when found guilty of crimes, should be ignored and allowed to do whatever.

IMHO, elephant in the room (sorry @pachy) will be the emoluments clause.

@seawulf575 . “If he had been honest, the whole thing would have gone away.” What on Earth are you talking about? If Bill admitted to adultery, it would have gone away? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

“Obama did more violations of the constitution than any other president in history.” That’s a ridiculous statement. It is completely unverifiable, and you know it.

And you keep saying “people like me.” But I have already told you that I believe ALL politicians are crooks. PEOPLE LIKE ME have the basic common sense to see Trump for whom he ardently declares himself.

I have given up trying to figure out why people like you defend him. Especially as his circus continues. Do you blame Obama, or Bill for his turnover rate of subordinates? It’s just another obvious indication that Trump has NO CLUE what he’s doing.

The moron must be stopped. I don’t care how, or of his supporters are bright enough to understand why.
Remember Capone had to be jailed on tax charges. It’s how they get people who are intimidating. The government will find a way to jail those whom are bullying people, and circumventing the law for their financial gain. The government is greedy too. In this case, I wager the government is a more greedy, and Trump has made himself a necessary target with his behavior. If he had stayed out of politics, he probably would have died without ramifications. Now, his arrogance may cost not only him, but his family greatly. It has already obviously affected many in PR.

My impression, is that it is quite a tangled web Trump and his cohorts have spun. It may take a LONG time to truly get to the depths of all the wrong doing. I don’t expect a easy, smoking gun. More likely, it will slowly unfold as it has. Hopefully culminating in Trump sweating it out under the lights, and questions of the many people he disrespected/shit on, on his way to POTUS…

His supporters will no doubt cry, and pitch fits through the whole process. Pointing futile fingers at Obama, Bill, Hillary and any others who don’t back their narrow thinking. Another bitter sweet part of one of the biggest mistakes in history. Watching him, and his selfish, xenophobic, ill informed, bigoted, greedy supporters slither back to wherever they came. Surely to reappear again whenever hate is preached, and ignorance/intolerance is the chosen path…

But for at least a short time, the world will remember what it’s like to let those people into total power. The result is the pathetic dumpster fire that has been the Trump administration. As it becomes more obvious by the day, that Trump’s election was a tragic mistake, his supporters will simply squeeze their eyes tighter shut. For reasons I no longer care….

@MrGrimm888 As for Bill being honest and admitting his adultery: Yes. If he had admitted it in the first place, there would be no perjury charge against him….he was honest under oath. And if he had been honest up front, there would be no investigation for him to obstruct. It always amazes me how those that blindly support the Clintons and Obama cannot see the simple truths surrounding them.
As for Obama violating the Constitution, go back up in this thread and you will see I already took this challenge from LostInParadise. I listed about 40 examples of his actions that violated the Constitution. Feel free to scroll back up and go verify them for yourself. Or don’t. Because if you actually opened your eyes and looked at the truth you might have to agree with me about Obama’s quality. Can’t have facts interfering with the liberal fantasy world, can we?
As for “people like you” I stand by my statement. And you proved it to be true already with your blind denial of Obama violating the Constitution. You can obviously say ALL politicians are crooks. Except Dems, apparently. You blindly support them and vociferously deny any crimes they committed.
The rest of your rant is just that…rant. I have challenged you already repeatedly to name the crime for which Trump should be impeached and you can’t do it. You are stuck in the idea that someone has to find something to get rid of him. But can’t really articulate anything he has done that is so horrible. Remember, all this effort to impeach him started before he was even sworn into office. Sort of hard to do anything impeachable when you aren’t even in office. But continue letting blind hatred consume you. I won’t stop you. I’ll just hope for some clarity of understanding and thought for you.

^I know you’re proud of your list, but you cannot verify that other presidents haven’t done more. That’s what is unverifiable. If you read my response, you would have understood that that was my point. I never blindly supported anyone.

As I’ve previously explained, I am confident that Trump has broken the law, because he is a politician. I don’t know,or even care how. I’m more concerned with the man destroying our government, and possibly starting a war (s.)

The only blind support going on here is by yourself. You are a typical Trump supporter. Go back and stare at your list. Nobody else cares. If they were true, verifiable facts, then Obama would be in prison. Your type hate Obama so muxh, you can’t even let it go when he’s no longer a part of the government. There’s your blind hate. Or should it be color blind? I wager you hate him because he’s black, like most other Trump supporters. He certainly never did anything wrong to you. Are mad because he wanted you, and your family to have healthcare? What a joke…

this argument that Obama and Hillary got a pass is pretty
much noise to pave the way for the upcoming “legend” of Trump martyrdom.

@MrGrimm888 So let me interpret your answer, or at least tell you how it comes across. You see all the crimes that Obama has done and cannot look at it since it points out that I am right. You cannot hope to find another president that was so lawless so you want to try laying it back on me to try proving myself wrong.
Your hatred of Trump is blinding you to the point that you don’t care what he may or may not have done, as long as someone, somewhere, can dig up or even create something to beat him up with. Here’s a thought for you…they couldn’t do it when he was running for for the Republican primary, they couldn’t do it when he was running for the presidency, and despite trying to start an impeachment dialogue from before he was sworn into office, no one has been able to do it since. I do agree with you that sometime in his past he has committed a crime. But impeachable offenses would be something either extremely serious with no statute of limitations (i.e. murder) in his past, or something extremely serious since he was elected which is unlikely to appear. He is boorish and undignified, but not stupid. He’s smart enough to know that everyone was and is gunning for him and he will not give them the ammo they need.
Go stare at my list, nobody else cares. I think you just summed up my argument about liberals. They elected a guy that was entirely lawless, and they don’t care. What does that one statement say about liberals, such as yourself? On the flip side of that, you claim I am a typical Trump supporter. It would be an interesting exercise for you to actually state down how you see the typical Trump supporter. Because what have I said about him so far? I have said he is boorish. I have called him crude. I have stated he is undignified. I have stated he uses Twitter way too much for my liking. I have stated that if evidence ever did appear of criminal behavior by him I would gladly call for his impeachment. Wow! does that sound like a fanatical follower? I have stated that the establishment pols and the MSM have been working since before he was elected and sworn into office to try discrediting him. I have stated that they are wasting tons of time, effort, and money on a witch hunt instead of actually doing their jobs and fixing problems in this country. And I have stated that we need to actually give Trump a chance, not blindly battle him on every topic. THAT is about the extent of my Trump support. And if you get right down to it, I pretty much summed up the problem with our government, not really lead the cheer for Trump. So please, give a detailed description of what you see as a Trump supporter. And along with that, and please be specific, list the things Trump has ACTUALLY done that make him so bad and make supporting him such a sin in your eyes.
I knew eventually you would get around to bringing Obama’s race into things. I give you a list of 40 things he did as president that violated the Constitution, and you think I hate him and that it is because he’s black. What is it about Liberals that make them so caught up with racism? The guy dragged this country way down the wrong path. Many people in this country agree with that opinion. He violated the Constitution and divided this country along every fault line he could find. But the only reason anyone could think he was a bad president was because he was black. Oh, and he is only half black, by the way. Do liberals ever really think about what they say or how it actually sounds? I’m guessing not. Let me point out another issue liberals have with facing the Obama reality. It was Bush’s fault for anything and everything that was wrong for 7 of the years Obama was president. That was the story from Obama and which was echoed by liberals everywhere. Yet Trump has been in office just a few months and everything that liberals can possibly find that might give a hint and being wrong is all his fault. Yet when challenged to actually name something he has done, they fall back to generalities and rhetoric, accusations and innuendo.

@stanleybmanly Hillary and Obama did get a pass. And it has nothing to do with Trump. It is an indictment of our corrupt government and a biased media. Though I will say that it is disturbing how many liberals refuse to ever say anything that might be detrimental about Hillary or Obama, regardless of how true it might be. Instead, they just want to make the discussion go away. When Obama was in office, there was no problem talking about the sins of Bush or Cheney for 7+ years, yet it seems to suddenly be meaningless and somehow wrong to talk about the outgoing president and the losing presidential candidate and their crimes under any circumstances. In this thread, I have brought them up as an example of the hypocrisy of those that are so dead set against Trump and all his non-existent crimes. The same people that want to impeach Trump for crimes that have no evidence don’t want to talk about or worse, try to defend, Obama or the Clintons and their crimes that actually happened. When Hillary was under investigation for her email scandal and the mishandling of classified materials, all we heard from liberals was that it was a witch hunt. Yet those same people deny that is what is going on with Trump while they spout off about how he needs to be investigated until something can be found to impeach him (the definition of witch hunt).

@seawulf575 . You mentioned your list again. I recommend you take it down to your local police station. If you are correct, charges should be brought on Obama…
I’ll wait for the headline…

But… I wager you simply copied the list from an alt-right site in the first place. They post it in their echo chamber, because it clearly is irrelevant to the actual powers that be.

Trump claimed that he would imprison Hillary for her crimes. How’s that going?... Oh wait, he’s the one being investigated?

@seawulf575 Conservatives are going to whine about liberals and vice versa. The right has been throwing allegations around about the Clintons for some 40 years. The “crimes” you claim committed by Obama and Hillary get no traction, so the conclusion must be that the system is corrupt. How about the proposition that conservatives have just plain worn the system out with nonstop silliness and stupid allegations against Clinton and Obama. Perhaps the problem is that you folks cry wolf so often and loudly that by now, no one takes you seriously. You’ve worn out the outrage factor. I mean what are we supposed to think when the current idiot President is at the forefront of the patently ridiculous birther movement? In view of the flood of truly psychotic charges flung around by the right, it can be no surprise that folks no longer pay attention. Trump on the other hand is fresh meat, new to the game. He also comes with the enormous bonus of a truly sleazy past and character flaws equivalent to a neon billboard.

@stanleybmanly & @stanleybmanly You both are completely missing the entire point. The hypocrisy of being against Trump for crimes he hasn’t committed or that haven’t been uncovered yet wanting to deny or ignore the actual crimes committed by Obama and Hillary is the point. The crimes committed by Obama were covered by the Dems since the only punishment that could be rendered while Obama was president was to impeach him. The Dems ensured that wouldn’t happen. Welcome to corrupt government. It isn’t a government about us, the people that elect them. It is a government about them supporting them regardless of how illegal or damaging to the US it might be. THAT is the point.
You rail at me about crying wolf and how conservatives have been going on at the Clintons for 40 years. Here’s a clue: You are doing the same to Trump. He has done absolutely NOTHING and, in fact, wasn’t even in office before liberals AND establishment pols were creating innuendo and talking about impeachment. Talk about crying wolf!!! Even now, you both have stated that you really don’t care what they find on him as long as they find something. In other words, he hasn’t done anything, but you are crying wolf in the hopes that something can be found. How long do we waste time, effort and money on this? How long do we continue to support career politicians that don’t care about the country, but only how they can get rich? THAT is the point. Clintons HAVE done illegal and/or unethical and/or immoral acts. Hillary was thrown off the Watergate investigation because of her entirely unethical, partisan behavior. Bill was impeached for lying under oath and using the power of the presidency to obstruct investigations into his actions. Hillary mishandled classified materials and then lied about it. Obama broke the law 40+ times. And the only reason they get away with it is because of a corrupt government machine that refuses to let them pay for their crimes. Why is it that you cannot even bring yourselves to admit that?
You keep attacking Trump, yet never once have you actually stated a single crime he has committed. You talk about his “sleazy past” but cannot articulate what is so sleazy and why it is any worse that the Dems that you support. All you have is liberal accusations and innuendo. No facts at all. When you actually break down the facts, Trump hasn’t done ANYTHING which has been attested to by several intelligence agency heads. If all you care about is spewing the party line, please, carry on. I’m not really going to change your minds because your minds are too closed. But I reserve the right to point out your hyposcrisy whenever I see it. And as you can tell, I am not shy about that. I see that hypocrisy (not just from you two) as a source of what is wrong in this country. We allow some people that are part of the “in” crowd to get away with whatever they want while anyone that dares to challenge them is castigated and attacked.

I’m OK with being called on hypocrisy in this situation. That’s fair. Especially if you admit the same by the GOP…

As far as wasting money, as long as he is taken out of office, it’ll be worth every penny. To me.

The only thing I would add is: “Emoluments”

Everything else has been hashed over in this thread except the emoluments clause.

@MrGrimm888 I will gladly call the GOP for hypocrisy. They are idiots and just as corrupt as everyone else in DC.

@Strauss you have brought up the emoluments clause a couple times now and I think everyone ignored you, including myself. I apologize. I am curious, how do you see the emoluments clause playing in to this situation?

@seawulf575 There’s not a short answer, and I’m pressed for time right now, but I’ll be back later in the day. I want to be able to cite sources…

@seawulf575 Sorry for the delay.
The so-called Emoluments Clause was designed to ensure that our nation’s leaders would not be corrupted by foreign influence or put their own financial interests over the national interest. (“Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:

“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

There are at least three lawsuits right now against President Trump.The first is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) vs.Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States (Case 1:17-cv-00458 Filed in the US District Court, Southern District of New York January 23 2017)

The second is a suit filed by 196 members of the US Senate and House of Representatives (Case 1:17-cv-01154, filed in US District Court, District of Maryland 06/14/17

The third is The District of Columbia and the State of Maryland vs. Donald J. Trump in his official capacity as President of the United States (Case 8:17-cv-01596-PJM, filed in US District Court, District of Maryland, June 12 2017)

I’d be glad to discuss these in more detail.

Let me start by saying I am no lawyer. I have too much self-respect for that :-) I think the real problem that all these lawsuits have is that they automatically assume that the president can have no other dealings in his life besides being president. Given the efforts here, what it looks like is that the two lawsuits you cited are based on the assumption that his companies do business in with other countries and make a profit so it is a violation of the Emoluments clause. The third one, by the 196 members of congress, looks more like partisan politics since it is all Democrats. I think the arguments being made might be a stretch because it then opens up a whole can of worms that Washington won’t want to look at. First, let’s look at what the emoluments clause actually says:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

So what these people are trying to do is extend the idea of present, emolument, office, or title to include profit from business dealings from businesses that were already in existence before being elected. I’m going to take as given that we aren’t worried about a title of nobility being given to Trump by the US.
So given that definition, let’s then look a little deeper. Let’s see to whom this applies. Let’s look at the part that says “no person holding any office for profit”. First off, nowhere in the actual clause does it mention the President or even hint at it applying to the president alone. So by the actual wording, let’s apply it as these politicians and plaintiffs want it to apply. Every Congressman, Senator, Cabinet member, SCOTUS justices and all their entourages would actually fall under the description. It could apply to all of them. So if any of them got campaign contributions from foreign nationals, if any of them hold interest in any business that does business with foreign companies, if any of them even hold stock in a company that does business with a foreign national, this could be extended to apply to them. Look at Hillary holding office as Secretary of State and still getting funding from the Clinton Foundation. That fits better into the Emoluments clause since the Clinton foundation doesn’t give any goods or services for the money it takes in. But I use Hillary only as an example. The same sort of thing goes on all the time in DC. Nancy Pelosi could also be used. Her husband runs a major investment firm. If any of those investments are into overseas accounts, that also applies since she profits from it. He has invested in Apple, Facebook, and Disney, all of which have dealings overseas. Again….profit from overseas dealings by a person that holds office for pay.
The other part that hits me as being somewhat iffy from a legal standpoint is that all of Trump’s holdings (and I’m sure Hillary’s, Pelosi’s, and all business owners) are into companies. Those are separate entities from a legal standpoint. Just like with the Hobby Lobby lawsuits: if these are privately owned companies, it applies to the owners. If they are publicly traded enterprises, the owners are separate and only get income from them in the form of investments and/or salaries. So for a foreign country to do business with these companies, from a legal standpoint, doesn’t imply they are giving anything to the person.
Lastly, if you look at the last part of the emoluments clause, it states who the presents, emoluments, titles, etc are from: “from any king, prince, or foreign state”. Unless Trump (or Hillary, or Pelosi, or any of them) are actually getting presents from a king, a prince, or a foreign government (state), it wouldn’t apply. If Trump has dealings with a Chinese company, that is different than with the Chinese government.
So trying to tie Trump up with the emoluments clause could be an interesting legal exercise. And honestly, it is one that could be tied up in the courts for the next decade. And if these lawsuits are successful, then every senator, congressman, justice, judge, mayor, governor, cabinet member, or anyone else in the government that makes any profit from a foreign government would likewise be in violation and should, likewise, be ejected from their position.

and perhaps they too should be “ejected from their offices.” But the trouble around Trump is about the depth, extent and clarity of the conflicts involved. Foreign diplomats and high ranking officials in criminal regimes pouring tens of millions into Trump properties. And here it is worth noting the marked involvement of Russian criminal elements in propping up Donald’s business empire. There can be little question that this particilar involvement of Trump businesses with Russian kleptocrats will lead to his undoing once the cork is out of the bottle and results of current investigations see the light of day.

Emoluments can be tricky. If a foreign government buys a Trump property for far more than it is worth, is that an attempt to curry favor? Should it count as an emolument? The safest thing would be to put one’s assets in a blind trust, as Trump’s predecessors did, but Trump refused to do.

@seawulf575 …they automatically assume that the president can have no other dealings in his life besides being president…

It’s not “they automatically assume”, it’s ”the Constitution requires”.

it is widely understood—(from such politically different organizations as The Brookings Institute (see article) and The Heritage Foundation that this clause covers the President of the United States and prevents him or her from accepting anything of value, monetary or nonmonetary, from any foreign government or its agent or instrument without congressional consent.

For this reason it has been customary for Presidents in the past to divest their interests in any business dealing that could possibly present a conflict of interest, that is, a conflict between the officeholder’s personal stake in such business dealings and the officeholder’s duty to protect and defend the government of the United States.

So. Can Trump pardon himself, if found guilty of receiving emoluments?

The answer is almost certainly no! But that doesn’t mean that he is beyond trying to get away with it. There are times (and this is one of them) when I must actually resist the urge to feel sorry for Trump. For if and when he is compelled to testify before a grand jury without his attorneys the risks to himself will be staggering. In fact, I cannot dream up a less threatening scenario for Trump than the idea of him being compelled to testify at length after swearing to tell the truth.

@stanleybmanly I state it again: This is a can of worms that our ruling elite don’t want opened. They are going through political motions. But, again, look at all the other dealings where politicians get money from foreign nations and or investments. And I give you Hillary as the prime example. We are talking about people buying into Trump’s enterprises. Ostensibly getting something for their money…stocks, bonds, partnerships, etc. But then you look at Hillary and the Clinton Foundation. Same tens (hundreds) of millions of dollars, but nothing to show for the investors. And very little of that money actually making it to charities or philanthropic investments. All while she was secretary of state. Yet no one made a stink about emoluments. There’s that hypocrisy again. And I will stand by my earlier statements again…if it comes out that Trump (as Trump) has taken money from foreign governments, I will gladly call for his impeachment. But in this cause, Trump would have a solid case, if he were expelled from office on these grounds, to bring suit against each and every politician in DC and their entourages to likewise get them expelled.

@Strauss I agree 100% the emoluments clause covers the president. The part that people don’t want to remember is that it doesn’t apply ONLY to the president. Look at the text. It is for any person holding an office and getting a paycheck for it. In fact, many of the federal ethics laws apply more to many government employees more so than they do to the president. Reason? The President and Vice-President aren’t considered federal employees. They are temp workers at best. And that precedence was set back in the 70’s with Nelson Rockefeller being sworn in as VP.
Don’t get me wrong…I don’t support the corruption. But I will say the legal battle on this one could carry well beyond Trump’s presidency. My basis for saying that? I don’t believe any of the career politicians want this can of worms opened AND I look at all the times Obama violated the Constitution and got sued for it. Slam dunk cases, and in some cases the rulings were against him, but he continued to tie them up in appeals courts over and over until he was well out of office.

@seawulf575 hypocrisy or not, the difference between Clinton & Trump is that Clinton was vetted for her job as Secretary of State and if these charges of yours held any water at all, it is impossible to believe that the Republican Congress would permit her candidacy for Secretary of State without excruciating and meticulous examination of the evidence and loud insistence on her prosecution. The only reason Trump escaped the investigations he currently suffers is that no one believed there was a chance in hell of him being elected. I agree with your diagnosis on why the msm and political elites neglected Trump’s criminal underpinnings in preventing his election. The assumption that even the woefully notoriously “low information” American electorate could not miss the obvious fact that the man was an ignorant arrogant fool unsuitable for public office proved incorrect. And yes there might be some truth that if you dig deep and hard enough, it might be possible to find grounds to compel Clinton or Obama to answer to a grand jury. Trump’s big problems are first of all that it is just plain easy to obtain the necessary dirt, and finally that the exposure of that dirt is now universally recognized to have an urgency beyond precedent.

So instead of arguing tirelessly with you in contrasting Trump’s culpability with that of his predecessors, I will concede that the urgency of his removal in the msm, corrupt political establishment, and remaining percentage of the population that can still read and write, that urgency does indeed guarrantee as you say that “the means will be arrived at” regarding his removal. Fortunately for the country, those means are legal and in Trump’s case plentiful and wondrously simple to document.