If anything we need to impeach Al Green and his jerry curls, hey Al...let's not get together. Such a punk ass b****.
Trump is currently the subject of a defamation lawsuit filed by a former contestant on his reality TV show The Apprentice, Summer Zervos, who has accused him of sexual assault. Zervos claims Trump defamed her by calling accusations made by her and multiple other women “lies” and “nonsense.” Rather than financial reward—she is seeking damages of just $3,000—her lawyer, Gloria Allred, has said the motivation is to have the truth come out. The judge in the case is expected to decide before the end of the year whether the suit should move ahead or to agree with the argument of Trump’s lawyers that a sitting president cannot be sued in state court. In the case of Clinton, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a sitting president was not immune to being sued in civil court. That would appear to have set a legal precedent, but, because Clinton’s case was adjudicated in federal court and Trump’s would go before a state court, the current president has argued that the high court decision should not be followed. That stance is rejected by a group of legal scholars who submitted a brief 20 years ago that Clinton wasn’t immune from his sexual harassment suit, and last month filed a similar brief in the case against Trump. “There’s no important difference between this case and the one against Clinton,” Richard Primus, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School who is representing the legal scholars, told Newsweek Thursday. “Clinton was sued civilly and the Supreme Court said that even though it’s distracting for a president to have to defend a lawsuit, he’s not above the law and the suit can go forward. The same principle should apply here.” Were the case to go ahead, Trump could be forced to give a deposition or even to testify. Were he to lie under oath, it would be grounds for impeachment, just as happened with the husband of his 2016 election rival. “We all know what happens when the president of the United States goes into a deposition and lies under oath,” Richard Painter, an ethics chief in President George W. Bush's administration, said. “I don’t think he really wants to compound his problems with Clinton's problems.” However, much could depend on what questions the judge allows Zervos's lawyers to ask, said Painter, and if they are given as wide a brief as lawyers in the Clinton case, who were able to question him about his extramarital affairs. ...
If this happen, chances he will lie. He doesn't know how to not lie. It's also funny that you can't lie under oath, but you can lie 80% of the time as a POTUS and it would be perfectly fine in today environment. I know all politicians lies, but we have reached a new level with this POTUS. Maybe we do need some new metric that would kick high officials out if they crosses some threshold for lies, false and misleading claims.
If Democrats want the Oval office, they are best to let him serve out his term. As its been said before, they need to spend their energies on finding a quality candidate that represents America, not just their party. It will be more difficult to beat Pence than Trump.
Hmm... seems the current president of the United States and the things he says and does would be an appropriate topic of discussion in a political discussion board. And in this case, this president creates a lot of topics of discussion. Especially when most of what he does is worthy of criticism and objection. And that is the role of the party out of power, to object where appropriate. That said, it seems pretty early to discuss possible candidates for 2020. But there was at least one thread that discussed this: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...o-make-a-comeback.280136/page-8#post-11228045 We can revive that thread if you like. I am happy to discuss the people I like (I listed some in the thread referenced). And even discuss possible republican candidates that might attract the support of all the republicans/conservatives that claim they didn't support or vote for Trump. But again, seems early, but curious which candidates you are interested in. Funny thing... accusing Democrats of only representing their part, not America? Seriously? can you point to instances when the current president or even republican leadership has done anything other than represent the republican party? added comment... if we are discussing Pence instead of Trump in 2020 then there had to be a major problem and I'd expect Pence to be tainted by his support of and questionable statements he made that appear to be untruths.
Pence has the charisma of a wet dishrag. He's ideologically sound from a Republican view, but ideology has nothing to do with why Trump won. And that hard line right wing ideology would actually have issues in a general election. Pence would get his @as handed to him He's a right wing version of Dukakis. Having been VP would give him a boost, but not that much of a boost The winning gameplan is find someone charismatic who doesn't seem like a hardliner, and then surround him with the hardcore ideologues to advise him. Pence is a stiff suit that repeats the party line with dead eyes and has never appeared spontanious in his life.
Case for Impeachment Free Speech For People and RootsAction call upon Congress to open an investigation to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to impeach President Trump, including: obstruction of justice; violations of the Foreign Emoluments Clause and Domestic Emoluments Clause of the United States Constitution; conspiring with others to: (a) commit crimes against the United States involving the solicitation and intended receipt by the Donald J. Trump campaign of things of value from a foreign government and other foreign nationals; and (b) conceal those violations; advocating illegal violence, giving aid and comfort to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and undermining constitutional protections of equal protection under the law; abusing the pardon power; and recklessly threatening nuclear war against foreign nations, undermining and subverting the essential diplomatic functions and authority of federal agencies, including the United States Department of State, and engaging in other conduct that grossly and wantonly endangers the peace and security of the United States, its people and people of other nations, by heightening the risk of hostilities involving weapons of mass destruction, with reckless disregard for the risk of death and grievous bodily harm; directing or endeavoring to direct law enforcement, including the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to investigate and prosecute political adversaries and others, for improper purposes not justified by any lawful function of his office, thereby eroding the rule of law, undermining the independence of law enforcement from politics, and compromising the constitutional right to due process of law.
