When you are in a high level business, it is also your responsibility to make sure that none of the money that goes into the business, or through the business is illegal.
Keeping Mafia or Drug Cartel money out can be difficult – but the Chumph’s desperation because he was near bankrupcy made him look the other way.
Here is a draft of what Articles of Impeachment for Trump would look like (so far).
The assumption in this set is that the result of the investigation into the Chumph’s collusion with Russia on the election hasn’t been released yet, so further criminal charges are not added. There is also a secondary investigation into the Chumph’s money laundering activities with the Russian Mob which has not reached conclusions.
A first draft of an impeachment bill for the president.
The framers of our Constitution likely never imagined a President like Donald J. Trump. And yet, they inserted impeachment provisions into the original text of the Constitution, some 230 years ago, to empower Congress to act in case a rube, tyrant, or criminal came to occupy the nation’s highest office.
It’s not crystal clear which Trump might be, but the president’s latest outrageous actions—the reported passing of highly classified intelligence to Russian diplomats in the Oval Office—should awake Republicans and Democrats in Congress to the dangers posed by Trump to the nation in case that wasn’t already obvious. His conduct now goes far beyond mere offense or incitement to constitute actual damage to U.S. national security, the very definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” contemplated by the men who crafted the Constitution’s impeachment clauses. With this latest act, the time has come to commence the slow, deliberate process of demonstrating that Trump needs to be removed from office so he can harm the nation no more. A broad congressional inquiry should begin immediately, to inform drafters who will prepare articles of impeachment for consideration by the House and Senate. While Republican control of Congress means that such proceedings won’t occur anytime soon, it’s clear that they are warranted. We don’t yet know for certain what precisely such an investigation would yield, but there is enough public information already available to roughly map out what such articles of impeachment might—and probably should—look like.
Historically, impeachment articles have focused on broad violations of constitutional duty and specific discrete acts like clashing with Congress over Reconstruction, commanding the Watergate break-in, or testimonial perjury. In Trump’s case, there is ample evidence for both the more general violations and the more specific abuses, much of them admitted by the president through his own indelicate tweets (including admissions Tuesday morning regarding the passing of classified information to the Russians).
So what might an impeachment bill against President Trump include?
The Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton impeachment bills used common language to put their specific violations in context. Any Trump articles of impeachment should also include such language at the start of each article:
In his conduct while president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office:
Beyond this preamble, the Trump impeachment bill might include, but not be limited to, the following articles:
Article 1: Compromising the integrity of the presidency through continuing violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. From his first day in office, Trump’s continuing stake in Trump Organization businesses has violated the clause of the Constitution proscribing federal officials from receiving foreign payments. The true and full extent of Trump’s conflicts of interest remains unknown. For his part, Trump has transferred day-to-day control over these interests to his adult children and the management of the Trump Organization. However, he remains the ultimate beneficiary for these businesses, so the fundamental conflict of interest remains. These foreign business ties violate both the letter and spirit of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, and arguably provide the clearest basis for impeachment based on the facts and law.
Article 2: Violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office by disregarding U.S. interests and pursuing the interests of a hostile foreign power, to wit, Russia. L’affaire Russia began during Trump’s campaign for the presidency, during which several top aides reportedly had contacts with Russia and its intelligence service. His campaign manager also had reportedly worked either directly or indirectly for the Kremlin. These contacts continued, famously, into the presidential transition, when the president’s chosen national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had his ill-fated contacts with Russia. Beyond these contacts, Trump has substantively acted in myriad ways that benefit Russia, including dangerous diplomacy that has reportedly frayed relationships with our allies and allegedly put allied intelligence assets at risk. By offering classified information to the Russians, it was reported that Trump risked the intelligence assets of a Middle Eastern ally that already warned American officials that it would stop sharing such information with America if that information was shared too widely. In risking that relationship, Trump has opened up the possibility for the loss of that information stream for combatting terrorism, and potentially put American lives at risk from the loss of intelligence that could inform officials about future attacks on Americans at home and abroad.
Article 3: Impairment and obstruction of inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress into the extent of the Trump administration’s conflicts of interests and Russia ties. The Trump administration has systematically impeded, avoided, or obstructed the machinery of justice to obscure its business relationships, its Russia ties, and the forces acting within the Trump White House to animate policy. The most egregious and visible examples have been Trump’s firings of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey. [Update, 6:18 p.m.: The New York Times reported on Tuesday afternoon on an even more egregious case of apparent obstruction of justice, wherein Trump allegedly directly asked Comey to end the FBI’s investigation of Michael Flynn.] Each termination had what appeared to be a lawful pretext; subsequent statements or admissions have indicated each had more to do with obstructing justice than holding leaders accountable. Alongside these sackings, the Trump administration has also worked to starve Justice Department inquiries of resources and refocus investigators on suspected leaks instead of the White House’s own Russia intrigues. The Trump administration also interfered with congressional inquiries through attempting to block witnesses like Yates from appearing or selective leaking of classified information to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, compromising Nunes so badly he had to recuse himself from the matter.
Article 4: Undermining of the American judicial system through felonious intimidation of potential witnesses. In his desire to continue Comey’s public humiliation, and ensure Comey remained silent about Trump’s possible sins, the president threatened Comey on Twitter with disclosure of “tapes” of their conversations. This follows a pattern of Trump roughly treating witnesses and litigation adversaries that stretches back for decades before his presidency. Since taking office, Trump has also used the bully pulpit of his office to threaten intelligence officials for purported leaks and badger former Yates before her congressional testimony. In addition to falling beneath the dignity of the presidency, these verbal assaults also constitute obstruction of justice, prohibited by federal statutes on witness intimidation, retaliation against a witness, and obstruction of federal proceedings. These attacks don’t just harm the individuals who are targeted; they assault and undermine the rule of law. As such, they constitute further grounds for impeachment of Trump and his removal from the presidency.
Article 5: Undermining of his office and the Constitution through repeated assaults on the integrity of the federal judiciary and its officers. During the presidential campaign, Trump publicly attacked federal district Judge Gonzalo Curiel on the basis of his ethnicity, saying Curiel had been “extremely hostile to (Trump),” and that the judge had ruled against Trump because of his “Mexican heritage.” Since taking office, Trump has continued his unpresidential assaults on the federal judiciary, particularly after repeatedly losing court battles over his travel bans. At one point, he described a member of the bench as a “so-called judge,” undermining the premise of an independent judiciary. These statements also undermined both the dignity and power of the presidency, and threaten the rule of law by attacking the integrity of the federal judiciary.
Article 6: Demeaning the integrity of government and its public servants, particularly the military and intelligence agencies, in contravention of his constitutional duties to serve as chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces. Trump swept into office with considerable disdain for the government and its military. Indeed, during his campaign, he insulted former prisoners of war, Purple Heart recipients, and Gold Star families; criticized the military for its performance in Iraq; and said today’s generals and admirals had been “reduced to rubble” during the Obama administration. Trump carried this disdain into the presidency, through his attacks on the “deep state” of military and intelligence officials that he believed to be obstructing his agenda. He also demeaned the military and its apolitical ethos through use of military fora and audiences as public spectacle—first to sign his immigration order in the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes, and then to deliver rambling speeches at military and intelligence headquarters suggesting that pro-Trump elements in those agencies were grateful Trump had taken power. Trump has also continued to wage political war against his intelligence community, suggesting as recently as Tuesday morning that it was sabotaging his administration through leaking and other nefarious activities. In doing these things, Trump has undermined his constitutional office as president and commander in chief of the armed forces.
Article 7: Dereliction of his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the office of president by failing to timely appoint officers of the United States to administer the nation’s federal agencies. Shortly after taking office, Trump administration strategist Stephen Bannon articulated his plan for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” During its first four months in office, the Trump administration’s neglect of governance illustrates how this strategy is to be executed: delay of political appointments, failure to reach budget agreements with Congress in a timely manner, and deliberate neglect of governance and government operations. These actions and failures risk the health, welfare, and security of the nation, and represent a dereliction of Trump’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the office of the presidency.
Definitely a cover-up. Comey was fired because he had evidence of the Chumph’s collusion with the Russians.
Last week, then-FBI Director James B. Comey requested more resources from the Justice Department for his bureau’s investigation into collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion.
Comey, who was fired by President Trump on Tuesday, made the request in a meeting last week with Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, and briefed the chair and Democratic ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Monday, the officials said.
However, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said reports that Comey had requested more funding or other resources for the Russia investigation are “totally false.” Such a request, she said, “did not happen.”
Rosenstein wrote the memo that was used to justify Trump’s swift and unexpected firing of Comey on Tuesday evening.
Asked by reporters Wednesday whether she was briefed by Comey on requests for additional funding for the investigation, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Intelligence Committee, said: “I was not. But I understand that there have been additional requests. That’s all I can say.”
It’s unclear where the FBI investigation stands. Comey acknowledged publicly in March that the FBI was looking into possible coordination between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign, and he said the investigation had begun in late July. Comey said that for a counterintelligence probe, “that’s a fairly short period of time.”
Last summer, the FBI obtained a secret court order to monitor the communications of Carter Page, who was an early adviser to the Trump campaign, as part of its investigation. Page has not been accused of any crimes, and it is unclear whether the Justice Department will eventually seek charges against him or others in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 campaign.
Law enforcement officials are also examining contacts between former national security adviser Michael Flynn and Russian officials.
“No reason to prosecute”…Basically because nobody recorded it on a cell phone. Even stranger, the suspect in this case, supposedly has a weapon… But never fires it.
It has been reported that the weapon police supposedly “found” was rusted and inoperative – suggesting it had been stored in somebody’s trunk long time just for a situation like this.
The Cook County State’s Attorney will not file criminal charges against the officer.
The Cook County State’s Attorney has released the dash cam footage from a 2014 incident that shows Chicago police fatally shooting a black man and said there will be no criminal charges against the officer who opened fire.
Anita Alvarez during a Monday afternoon press conference said Officer George Hernandez was “reasonable” to use deadly force on 25-year-old Ronald Johnson as he was fleeing police on Oct. 12, 2014. Police said Johnson was armed and turned to point his gun at police, a claim the Johnson family disputed in a 2014 lawsuit.
Johnson’s family for the last year has called on officials to release dashcam footage of the incident. Alvarez played the footage for reporters during Monday’s press conference which shows that Officer George Hernandez fired five times on Johnson, striking him twice.
Alvarez said whether Hernandez shot Johnson was not the legal question that drove her decision not to charge him.
“Those facts are not in dispute,” Alvarez said. “The legal questions are: Number one, is there sufficient evidence that exists to meet the legal burden of proof required to bring charges? Number two, in using deadly force, did Officer Hernandez act reasonably under the law?”
Alvarez said following the investigation she concluded that Hernandez’s actions were “reasonable and permissible” since Johnson resisted officers and was running toward a police vehicle and a city park while they believed he was armed.
Johnson was leaving a party near Washington Park on the city’s South Side when the car he was a passenger in was shot at multiple times but an unknown gunman, Alvarez said. Neither Johnson nor the three other people in the car were hurt.“The four men drove a short distance and returned to the scene,” Alvarez said. Nearby residents started to call 911, prompting multiple officer to respond to the scene, including Hernandez.Alvarez said Johnson was spotted by police officers near the scene and the officers ordered him to stop and drop his weapon.The grainy dash cam footage shows Johnson running toward the park, Hernandez pulling up to the scene, exiting the car and firing on Johnson. Alvarez said there was “physical struggle” between a Chicago police officer and Johnson before the shooting, but that it was not captured on the dash cam video.“The only dash cam recording of the incident comes from a vehicle in the back,” Alvarez said.
A group of 11 Dothan Alabama Police systematically planted drugs and guns on innocent black suspects for nearly 20 year in a conspiracy by a white supremacist group of officers. At least 1,000 – and possibly more young black men were falsely convicted.
One of the things that has been exposed by BLM and other folks looking at Police Accountability is the level of criminality within the Police Forces themselves. It is a pretty common theme in most TV Police drama that the officers are affected by their jobs, and some seek refuge in drinking. What is not discussed, is there is a criminality level within the Police Forces which appears to statistically mirror the general population…If not worse.
Decided to post the Police Criminality incidents, and results on a weekly basis as a feature. Perhaps it will stimulate a conversation, if not, in some small way, help tear down the wall of invincibility relative to accountability.
If The Legal System in the US Isn't Corrupt... This is What Should Be In Thomas' Future
This (below) from a Legal Blog. Turns out there are other people currently under indictment who did the exact same thing as Thomas did in not reporting his wife’s income.
Why should Thomas be the beneficiary of “Special Justice”? One of the cornerstones of the Justice system is that the Judges obey the laws that they are trying and sentencing people for. If a Judge walked into a bank with a gun and held it up, I think most people would recognize the problem with the impartiality of the same Judge sitting on a case trying bank robbers. That is exactly the problem Thomas’ misconduct presents.
Back when Hoover was in charge of the early FBI, one of the rules he established was that the behavior and conduct of his FBI Agents had to be beyond reproach. Urban Legend has it he refused to hire FBI Agents with so much as Parking Tickets – because that showed a disregard for the law.
I think it is time that the Justice Department indict Mr. Thomas, for what is clearly a crime – and for Mr. Thomas to step down from the Court.
News reports on the Thomas case generally have referenced 5 U.S. Code app. section 104, which calls for a misdemeanor punishment of up to $50,000 and one year imprisonment, or both, for each violation. Given that Thomas apparently violated the statute for roughly 20 years, he could wind up with a substantial penalty under that law.
But the punishment becomes much more severe under 18 U.S.C. 1001, which also appears to apply in the Thomas case. It is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison, and a former official with the U.S. House of Representatives currently is under indictment for actions that almost mirror those in the Thomas case. Reports POE:
While 5 USC app section 104 makes this conduct a misdemeanor punishable for up to a year in prison, 18 USC section 1001 is a felony statute carrying at least five years in prison. In fact, Fraser Verrusio, former Policy Director for the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is awaiting trial under section 1001 for not reporting income on his “United States House of Representatives Financial Disclosure Statement for Calendar Year 2003.”
You can read more about the charges against Fraser Verrusio at the link below. It appears that he was given no opportunity to amend his filings:
Indictment in U.S. v. Fraser C. Verrusio
Verrusio once worked for U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK), and the casehas received extensive coverage in the Alaska press. The prosecution reportedly grew out of the Jack Abramoff affair.
The U.S. Supreme Court, the very court upon which Thomas now sits, has a history of treating such violations as felonies. Reports POE:
Moreover, in UNITED STATES v. WOODWARD, 469 U.S. 105 (1985), in a case decided by the Supreme Court, the defendant, after checking the “no” box on a U.S. Customs form, was punished for both the false statement (18 USC section 1001) violation and the misdemeanor charge of failing to report the currency itself — all as a result of checking the “no” box.
You can check out the Woodward case at the following link:
U.S. v. Woodward, 469 U.S. 105 (1985)
As we reported in a recent post, domestic icon Martha Stewart and sports stars Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, and Marion Jones are among those who have run afoul of 18 U.S.C. 1001. Stewart and Jones already have served prison terms, while the Clemens and Bonds cases are pending.
Seems to me that next up on the DOJ’s criminal docket should be Faux News’ violation of ACORN employees Civil Rights – and possibly a RICO Investigation into criminal activity aimed at illegally destroying the organization. Several employees lost their jobs due to defamatory reporting. Further, it is normally incumbent on a News Organization to determine if the information it is broadcasting was collected legally – AND if laws were broken in the collection or manipulation of that information.
Vodpod videos no longer available.
 | Karen Melton on Of Melungeons and Other Histor… |
| Impeaching Trump - R… on CBC To Take Up Trump Impe… | |
 | Sven Helms on Counter-terrorism Officer… |
 | btx3 on New Travels |
 | George on New Travels |
Politicians Who Have Been "Elected" By 12 Jurors
The New Jim Crow, More Sneaky Than the Old
Btx3's Blog 