The Trump base is suprisingly powerful. He talks to them, plays to them, acts for them and pardons for them. Is there a limit to it?

Ryan turned out to be such a wimpy wuss. Thank you for your reply Sbf. So what does Trump base do with their adoration of him and rage about everything else? I guess we shall find that out at some point. :)

Re-elected, hell. He'll be impeached.

Not gonna happen. 

Aside from the fact that there's no grounds for impeachment (and God knows that the libs and the DC swamp creatures are trying hard) it would likely lead to an armed insurrection. No one wants that to happen.

Everyone wants this to happen.  I bet it happens.  This guy cannot make it through a week without stirring up some horrendous controversy.   The people who back him are dwindling in numbers.

Grounds for impeachment:
1. Obstruction of justice. That's what rolled Nixon, Trump has actually been worse because he fired Sally Yates. Nixon didn't fire the AG, Richardson resigned. The parallels between this and 1973 are staggering - if you're too young to remember (like me), try reading a little history.
2. Receipt of emoluments. Had he placed his assets in a blind trust, this wouldn't be an issue. He didn't, so every time a representative of a foreign government stays in one of HIS hotels, he violates Section I, Article 9, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.
3. Interference with Presidential records. As a private citizen he can do what he likes with his Twitter account, but as President it comes under the Federal Records Act (legally they're "digital memos"), so deleting tweets without departmental permission is technically illegal.
4. Conduct unbecoming a President. It might be harder to make that stick, but manhandling the leader of an allied nation is a bad look for the "Leader of the free world".

Of course, Congress just might decide to bypass impeachment and section-four him instead. Mentally unable to discharge the duties of his office. His increasingly incomprehensible tweets are indicative of mental instability.

This is brilliant, succinct and true.  However, I do not see any signs of anyone trying to do anything about any of it.

That was supposed to be aimed at S&RP. I'm on a tablet, so copying, pasting and deleting is tough

I was wondering.  I figured you just wanted to talk to me so you didn't have to deal with: 

IS THERE A SITE TO PROVE THIS
That is not true because I said so

From the other AB member.

No, there's no legitimate site to "prove" any of it because none of it is true. It's ALL bovine excrement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/12/emoluments-clause-trump-sued-by-maryland-and-dc-attorneys-general.html

https://www.thenation.com/article/an-article-of-impeachment-based-on-trumps-obstruction-of-justice-is-now-circulating-in-the-house/

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawsuit-watchdog-group-records-signal-confide-twitter-destroy-628281








This post was edited by Slartibartfast at August 31, 2017 5:14 AM MDT

You can't possibly be that naive as to believe those "sources". What they present is gossip, not factual news.

But lets see . . . one of the fairy tales is about the Attorneys General of DC and Maryland suing over the Emolument clause (I wonder what political party they're affiliated with?) It's political posturing to try to appease the losers, just sour grapes. I suggest that you do some reading though, maybe the US Constitution, to see how the President can be removed from office and also the Justice Department's opinion regarding suing the President. 

The second item on impeachment is also just sour grapes, completely groundless. Any idiot that's a member of the House can draw up and circulate Articles of Impeachment. (Again, I wonder which political party those malfeasant are affiliated with?) That kind of stuff happens a lot to get the voters back home whipped to a froth and to garner votes. That's one hell of a long way from actually voting a "thumbs up" on Articles and then getting the 2/3rds vote actually necessary in the Senate to remove a sitting President.

Your 3rd article from Newsweek can't be reached. Perhaps Newsweek has finally lost their last 3 subscribers and gone belly up. But if it's about suing the President then it has the same merit as the first article that you referenced: none.

So stop acting like an impetuous 3-year old about a leader that's not even in your own country, it makes you look foolish. Face the fact that Trump is the U.S. President now and will be for the next 3-1/2-years, probably for the next 7-1/2-years. Look at the bright side too,. We had 3% economic growth last quarter and added 12-million new, real jobs. This quarter is set to beat that. We haven't had economic performance than good since the Reagan Administration.

I just gave him three.

Where did you come up with that load of bovine excrement . . . .

Not a single thing you've written is true. Not one thing. You're just being ridiculous.

The termination of Yates was not obstruction of justice. She was flying the AG desk as a temp in a political job. Every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the President; every President has the right to pick his or her own cabinet members. She was a Democrat holdover from the Obama administration. She was gone anyhow as soon as Trump picked the AG that he wanted. That's not a parallel to Nixon contrary to what you wish.

The Emoluments Clause . . . ever read that clause? No? This is such a stupid argument that it's become boring. Try to come up with something that's actually valid. There is no violation of the emoluments clause when goods and services not related to governance are exchanged at fair market value. If that were the case every government worker that owned a military contractor's stock in their 401K retirement plan would be in violation. Think Boeing selling aircraft to Iran. Gotta be a quid-pro-quo situation. Renting the penthouse of The Clock Tower hotel to an Arab sheik for whatever the going rate happens to be doesn't meet that test. Even George Washington sold alcohol from his distillery to "foreign interests". But even if a "gift" is presented to a Federal employee (the Emoluments clause applies to ALL Federal employees) Congress can "approve" it. Read the clause.

"Blind trust"? Yet more bovine excrement. There's no law or statute that requires the President to put his or her assets into a blind trust. In fact, unlike everyone else in the Executive branch the President isn't even subject to the Conflict of Interest rules. 

Deleting his tweets . . . oh, please, how ridiculous can you be? First of all they're not "digital memos" like you seem to think. They're NOT being used to conduct private government business. In fact, they're no different than a news clip. The media is just pissed that Trump is bypassing their "editing" machine. Once something is on a public forum like Twitter it's well neigh impossible to delete it. (Just ask the NSA.) It's a LOT different than using a private e-mail server to conduct government business and then destroying those e-mails like Hil-LIAR-y did when she was Secretary of State. And apparently that's not a violation either, apparently.

"Conduct unbecoming a President" . . . where the h*** did that come from? Now you really are being really ridiculous . . . if his behavior happens to be considered to be a "High Crime" or "Misdemeanor" then he can be impeached as provided for in the Constitution. But offending the delicate sensibilities of some liberal "across the pond" is neither. 

As to Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, you need to read that too. I don't think that your inability to understand the President's tweets qualifies as his mental incapacitation; yours, maybe; but not his.

I don't know of anyone that wants it to happen. In fact, most of the folks in my circle of friends and acquaintances are going to be even more pissed at the left if it does happen.