Jeff Sessions resignation watch...

[Rambunctious]

Clinton isn't President. Besides, Trump is under investigation the same way the GOP would have put Clinton under investigation she won!!!! Trump wont receive special treatment

You don't have to be president to be investigated, Clinton is a criminal, a felon and a treasonous loser.

 

[Rambunctious]

It's about much more than blowjobs

It's a witch hunt. Trump did nothing wrong. And go ahead...minimize the president of the United States having sex with at the time a 19 year old girl in a closet in the Oval office with his wife the first lady upstairs. That is why people no longer take the left wing serious. That is why Hillary and the progressive movement was defeated. Not the Russians...Stop giving the criminals on your side a pass and maybe your point of view would get a better look. But keep on attacking Trump over nothing and giving a free hand for the democrats to criminalize ideology then you can watch it all come crashing down. Your party, your way of thinking, and anything liberal will be spat upon by the honest patriots in our great land. The Trump agenda rolls on regardless of what the swamp does or doesn't do.

All you Trumpanzee voters do need to realize it two years to impeach Nixon after the crook won 49 out of 50 states!! Its only been 7 months.
The Professor Who Predicted Donald Trump's Presidency Is Convinced He Will Be Impeached

The Professor Who Predicted Donald Trump's Presidency Is Convinced He Will Be Impeached
Pool

By
Jay Willis
April 17, 2017
Here's why Allan Lichtman, the man who correctly predicted the last nine presidential elections, calls Donald Trump "more vulnerable to impeachment than any early president in the history of the nation."

Way back in September, when most pundits were gleefully speculating about whether the Republican Party would ever recover from the Electoral College shellacking in store for then-candidate Donald Trump, one man had a very different guess about how things would shake out. Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University in Washington, D.C., declared Trump to be the favorite, relying on an election prediction methodology he had developed some three decades earlier and used to correctly predict every presidential election since. Lichtman was, of course, extremely correct—an accomplishment that earned him a personal note from the president-elect just a few days after the election. "Professor—congrats," wrote Trump in a letter to Lichtman. "Good call."

Around that same time, though, the vindicated prognosticator already had another fearless forecast ready to go, one that the president-elect would presumably not appreciate as much: Trump, Professor Lichtman asserted with confidence, will become only the third President of the United States to be impeached. He makes his case in a new book, The Case for Impeachment, and we spoke to him last week about how the country got to this point, and why he feels just as confident about this prediction as he was with the last one.

GQ: What made you feel confident predicting Trump's victory as early as you did?

Allan Lichtman: By paying no attention to the polls, or the pundits, or the day-to-day events of the campaign—the things that led most forecasters to arrive at erroneous conclusions. Instead, I used my system, the “Keys to the White House,”, which I first developed in 1981 and have used to correctly predict the nine presidential elections since. The basic thesis is that you have to keep your eye on the big picture of the strength of the incumbent president’s party. This time, the Democrats had many vulnerabilities irrespective of who their candidate was, or anything that either side did during the campaign. The party took a pasting in the 2014 midterms; the sitting president couldn’t run again; they endured a contentious primary fight; they didn’t follow up the Affordable Care Act with a big policy initiative during President Obama’s second term; and so on. A presidential election is, at its core, a referendum on whether the party in power should get four more years in office.

Having made that prediction, what makes you now think he’ll be impeached?

My impeachment prediction is not based on a formal methodology—after all, we’ve only had two impeachments, or three, including President Nixon’s resignation. But it is based on a deep study of history, including Trump’s parallels to his impeached predecessors; a study of the process of impeachment; a study of Trump's vulnerabilities, particularly those that have arisen over the course of his business career; and a look at the early weeks of his tenure in the White House. I identified eight separate grounds on which Trump is arguably susceptible to impeachment or removal, and I believe he is more vulnerable than any early president in the history of the nation.

Why release the book now, as his presidency unfolds and the already-murky details of his alleged malfeasance seem to grow more complicated by the day?

I thought very carefully about that. In the age of Trump, the pace of everything is accelerated—he’s been president for less than 100 days, and we feel like he’s been president for years.

But I’m not aiming to scrutinize the day-to-day events of the presidency. Instead, I wanted to provide a road map in the event that he does cross that line—because impeachment is a political process that occurs outside of the courts. It is responsive to the people, and if impeachment is going to take place, it will be because the American people demand it. All these protests and demonstrations and energy directed against the Trump presidency will be like smoke through a chimney unless, eventually, they are directed at achieving a specific political end.

You argue in the book that a president's conduct before taking office can support impeachment charges.


TRENDING THIS VERY SECOND

Entertainment
One of the Creepiest Horror Movies of 2017 Just Snuck Onto Netflix

News & Culture
Inside the Clothing-Optional Resort of Your Swinging Dreams

Style
The Nike Air John Mayers Are Dropping This Week


Yes, if the transgressions are serious enough, and if they relate to the presidency in some way. The most obvious example of pre-election conduct that could be impeachable collusion with Russia during the campaign. That didn't happen during the presidency, but is obviously directly related to the election that gave Trump the White House. There is still a lot of smoke around the campaign’s Russia links—Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Jeff Sessions, and General Flynn, among others. I think there could be some fire there.

Treason is one of the Constitution’s explicit grounds for impeachment, and if members of Trump’s team indeed colluded with Russia to swing the election, and he knew about it, that’s misprision of treason—the failure to report treason. If proven, that would be a very serious crime! And what Russia did was an attack—not an old-fashioned one with military weapons, but a cyberattack designed to undermine the foundations of American democracy.

Otherwise, that "high crimes and misdemeanors” threshold is not defined in the Constitution—that task rests solely with the House of Representatives, and there is no judicial review of their decisions. In 2010, when considering impeachment proceedings against a federal judge, even then-Senator Jeff Sessions opined that an official's conduct prior to their tenure in office could give rise to grounds for removal.

EDITOR’S PICK

News & Culture
How to Impeach a U.S. President (Say, Donald Trump), Explained
The argument for impeachment is much stronger if the conduct includes both things that happened before the presidency and conduct that occurred after the president took office. For example, if the House were to determine that Trump exploited illegal immigrants who worked on his construction projects, that could be relevant to his presidency and therefore impeachable, because a crackdown on illegal immigration was a cornerstone of his White House campaign. This behavior could then be linked to related potential abuses of power while in office—for example, with respect to the travel ban.

Aside from treason, which potential grounds for impeachment do you think are most likely to stick?

Conflicts of interest. The White House makes numerous decisions that are going to impact the profitability of Trump's businesses around the world, and although he might not be running them anymore, he knows in broad terms what policies would impact them and generate profit for them. Nonetheless, he refused to fully divest himself of his business interests before taking office. I understand that doing so might be complicated, and that he might take a financial hit in doing so, but no one forced him to run for president. He holds the most powerful position in the world, and if he has to make sacrifices to hold that position honorably, so be it.

There are specific constitutional provisions and laws that his conflicts of interests may violate. There has been a lot of discussion of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from taking things of value from a foreign power or their agents—even if the president gets nothing in return. For example, Trump recently obtained trademarks in China that had previously been held up there for a very long time. To what extent is his administration's China policy being influenced by those trademarks? We don’t know how his private interests are intertwined with the national interests, and that’s exactly what the Emoluments Clause was designed to guard against.

If the House has such broad discretion in determining the limits of what constitutes an impeachable offense, how do we stop the process from becoming solely a political weapon?

Look, impeachment is very serious. I’m not advocating impeaching Trump because he’s unconventional, or because of his politics, or because of his personality. There has to be a serious threat to our constitutional order, our liberties, our freedoms, and our national security in order for this process to be appropriate. I don’t think impeachment will be taken lightly, and I certainly don’t advocate that anyone do so.

"If members of Trump’s team indeed colluded with Russia to swing the election, and he knew about it, that’s misprision of treason."




That said, the Framers intended it to be the ultimate safeguard of our democracy. It’s also not that rare in American history—counting Nixon, one of every fourteen presidents has been impeached. The Framers didn’t necessarily expect the process to be all that unusual.

What are the most significant takeaways for Trump from President Johnson's impeachment proceedings, and from President Nixon's resignation?

Johnson was very stubborn and always believed he was right, even when he was wrong. He didn’t listen to others and resented the so-called “establishment,” and it was those characteristics that ultimately led to his impeachment. Trump exhibits some of those same qualities, and he would be wise to learn from Johnson that, as president, you have to take a broader view of things than whatever is inside your own head.

The parallels to Nixon are, I think, quite chilling. Trump is very thin-skinned and considers the media be his enemy. He believes in being on the attack at all times, and in the importance of getting even with people. He has a penchant for lying and for deflecting controversy instead of meeting it head-on. Finally, like Nixon, Trump seems bereft of any guiding principles, other than doing what is best for himself. This lack of guiding principles, for a president, is very dangerous.

Tell me about the 25th Amendment process for removing the president from office. Are you concerned that a judgment about whether the president it fit for the office will almost always be in the eye of the beholder?

I’m not a mental health professional, but already, more than 30 eminent members in the field have written an open letter opining that Trump is unfit for the duties of the White House—breaking the 50-year-old “Goldwater rule,” an ethics principle that forbids armchair diagnoses of political figures. Although few people are aware of it, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution provides a method for removing the president outside the impeachment process if he or she is unfit to carry out the duties of the office.

"Republicans in Congress love Mike Pence. He’s a down-the-middle, predictable, standard-issue conservative Christian. They would love to have Mike Pence in the White House!"

The process is difficult, and would only be invoked in very serious circumstances. It requires that the majority of the president’s cabinet and the vice president agree that the president is unfit to serve, and if the president objects, he or she can be removed only by a two-thirds vote of both legislative chambers. Frankly, the chances of it happening are remote. But Trump has the ability to launch, in a brief period of time, enough warheads to end human civilization, and there are perilous areas of the world right now that require cool and considered judgment—particularly North Korea. I think there are fair questions as to whether Donald Trump is capable of making those cool, considered judgments.

You (among others) argue that impeaching Trump might be good for the Republican Party. What has to happen in order for Paul Ryan and company to take that political risk?

Every member of the House has to face election in 2018, and Trump has no longstanding relationship with the Republican Party. If he continues to be ineffective in his efforts to enact a Republican agenda—as we saw with his failed health care reform effort—or if his unpopularity threatens the party’s electoral prospects as a whole, he could become a liability. Look at what just happened this week in the special election in deep red Kansas, where a Republican candidate barely held on to a district Trump won by nearly 30 points.

And remember, Republicans in Congress love Mike Pence. He’s a down-the-middle, predictable, standard-issue conservative Christian. They would love to have Mike Pence in the White House! And if he were to become president, he gets to appoint his vice president, which means you could, in theory, have a Mike Pence-Paul Ryan White House—the ultimate dream team for Republicans. Assuming Democrats are on board, it would only take about two dozen Republicans to deflect from their majority to secure enough votes to impeach.

Throughout his life, Trump has repeatedly escaped accountability—deflecting controversy, declaring bankruptcy, using statutes of limitation, dragging out lawsuits, and abandoning failed deals, leaving others to suffer. But you are accountable as president, and impeachment is the ultimate form of accountability. That’s the main message here: Whether or not impeachment ends up happening, we are responsible for holding this president accountable.

You can copy and paste all the nonsense you want it still proves nothing. Trump did not break the law, he did not collude with Russia and we are beginning to hear democrats say that very thing as a warning to their party. I guess you will get the message soon.

 

[basquebromance]

Trump doesn't have the balls to fire Jeff Session so he'll hide behind tweets and publicly humiliate Sessions every day.

sucks for Sessions.

 

[Lakhota]

Sounds like Sessions will soon be a go-ner.

 

[Rambunctious]

Trump doesn't have the balls to fire Jeff Session so he'll hide behind tweets and publicly humiliate Sessions every day.

sucks for Sessions.

When Session recused himself over what has become a full scale DC establishment and media vs a non politician witch hunt Sessions had already shortened his time as AG. Give me a break...a stupid thing done by a smart man. He should have never caved in and recused himself and he should step aside and save Trump the trouble. Someone needs to watch Muller and that is the AG office. How can Trump trust the deputy AG? It's a silent coup and all of us should be disgusted as hell.

 

[Lakhota]

I suspect Trump is also highly pissed at Sessions for not going after Hillary, for something or anything.

 

[Rambunctious]

I suspect Trump is also highly pissed at Sessions for not going after Hillary, for something or anything

Don't you think someone should? and if not why not?

 

[Rambunctious]

It's pay back time!!!!!!

 

[Billy000]

Seeing threads like this are almost as entertaining as watching vids like this.....

Pure deflection. You have nothing to defend Trump with so you deflect to the election that is completely irrelevant. You're a pussy like that.

 

[Billy000]

Clinton isn't President. Besides, Trump is under investigation the same way the GOP would have put Clinton under investigation she won!!!! Trump wont receive special treatment

You don't have to be president to be investigated, Clinton is a criminal, a felon and a treasonous loser.

And you're a pussy who can't stop talking about her like any con on this board. Damn dude. Live in the now.

 

[Rambunctious]

And you're a pussy who can't stop talking about her like any con on this board. Damn dude. Live in the now

So then "In The NOW" means investigate Trump only? Clinton and DNC crimes we can ignore because they are not "IN THE NOW"?
Are you stupid or something? or do you think I am?

 

[Rambunctious]

And you're a pussy who can't stop talking about her like any con on this board. Damn dude. Live in the now

Pay attention everyone....this post by Billy000 is why the dems will lose in 2018 and 2020...live in the now buuuuaaahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Lakhota]

Trump Asks Why ‘Beleaguered’ Jeff Sessions Isn’t Investigating Hillary Clinton

For what? Hillary has been exonerated.

 

[Snouter]

It was great that President Donald was loyal to Sessions and awarded Sessions a post, but Sessions is obviously an issue and should be relieved. The new AT needs to investigate the Crooked Hillary/Obama conspiracy to attack our democracy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Trump has had a problem with Sessions ever since Sessions gave him a weak Sig Heil at the swearing in ceremony.

 

[basquebromance]

"Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign - "quietly working to boost Clinton." So where is the investigation A.G. " - Trump

 

[initforme]

this talk of loyalty is beyond weird. Loyalty shmoyaltu. I'm loyal to my savor wife and family...after that....well the list ends there. This is America....every man for HIMSELF....do employers really expect loyalty from their employees? They shouldn't. Employees work for a paycheck not for the good of the employee. What has sessions done to be removed? Trump couldn't brag him up any higher 6 months ago.....does he flip a coin daily or what?

 

[RealDave]

Dear Jeff, Don't you dare resign. Make the fat assed chickenshit Trump fire you.

 

[Rambunctious]

For what? Hillary has been exonerated

There has to be a hearing in a court in order to be exonerated.... She has yet to be charged and that is a travesty of justice in itself. The rich and well connected get away with murder, but if you are a real estate mogul from NY they take the gloves off and come after you. Disgusting that you can't see that.

 

[basquebromance]

Despite being better on immigration than Trump is, Sessions is very well liked in the Senate. Trump is not.

strange how that works.