NYT Bomb: Trump Inherited $413 million - Committed Tax Fraud

[_Some Schmo]

There is nothing in that story that is the least bit dubious. It's strength is it's explanatory power. Now we understand more of the details behind why he is who he is.

I mean, if you ever actually watched The Apprentice without being an idiot sucker for "reality" tv you already knew Drumpf was a fraud. It's been in-your-face damned obvious for years. The question for me has always been, how did he get the reputation?

Now we know. It's been a long con with his father for decades.

This won't change his base. They were already stupid enough to fall for the con. They've bought in and won't back out now. They are all in on their stupidity investment.

[_moksha]

Is he going to get impeached for tax evasion in the 90s?

Those Lefties never impeached Al Capone for the same thing. The 90's were a long time ago, it would be like digging up bits and flecks of ancient history.

[_canpakes]

This won't change his base. They were already stupid enough to fall for the con. They've bought in and won't back out now. They are all in on their stupidity investment.

The Base is incapable of considering that Trump is a fraud because their backing of him is part and parcel of their self-identity. Changing their opinion of him now implies, in their mind, an initial failure on their part in voting for him. That cannot be allowed.

Once fooled, they can be forever controlled by the fraudster.

[_Some Schmo]

The Base is incapable of considering that Trump is a fraud because their backing of him is part and parcel of their self-identity. Changing their opinion of him now implies, in their mind, an initial failure on their part in voting for him. That cannot be allowed.

Once fooled, they can be forever controlled by the fraudster.

It really is analogous to LDS members allowing themselves to criticize the church. We all know how long that can take for people, and that for many, it never happens at all. Nobody likes to find out they were conned, which is why when certain people are confronted with clear evidence, they ignore it and keep paying their 10% till they die.

[_EAllusion]

Everything? Not according to Article II Section 4.

Did you take an American Government class? That's a serious question. Congress gets to decide for itself what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors," so politically everything is on the table. Period writing makes it very clear the intent is abuse of public trust, but Congress gets to decide what qualifies. A cultural norm expecting Congress to act in good faith, difficulty in getting the necessary votes, and political expediency in not starting an impeachment arms race is what prevents Congress from abusing this authority.

Public trust is not impeachable offense, get thee to a Constitution. See Article II Section 4.

Omg. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an archaic phrase that literally refers to abuse of public trust. It means misconduct that is related to the responsibilities of being an official. Get thee to a class that can explain basic civics to you.

In the meantime, you might want to read Alexander Hamilton explaining impeachment in Federalist #65:

"The subjects of its [impeachment's] jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

If that's too, uh, difficult, then maybe wikipedia can explain it to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crim ... sdemeanors

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

...

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

I did browse evidence and it appears that Trump's father may have cause for concern, but even though evidence may suggest Trump may have assisted his family commit fraud, it looks difficult to even prove that he did.

Lol.

[_EAllusion]

Andrew Johnson was impeached for trying to terminate a cabinet member that violated a constitutionally questionable law Congress had passed to prevent that from happening. But really, he was impeached for being a bastard who undermined reconstruction. The Senate fell one vote short of the 2/3rds majority needed for removal. You know why they were able to impeach him on these grounds? Because they decide entirely for themselves what counts as a high crime.

[_subgenius]

Everything? Not according to Article II Section 4.

Did you take an American Government class? That's a serious question. Congress gets to decide for itself what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors," so politically everything is on the table. Period writing makes it very clear the intent is abuse of public trust, but Congress gets to decide what qualifies. A cultural norm expecting Congress to act in good faith, difficulty in getting the necessary votes, and political expediency in not starting an impeachment arms race is what prevents Congress from abusing this authority.

Public trust is not impeachable offense, get thee to a Constitution. See Article II Section 4.

Omg. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an archaic phrase that literally refers to abuse of public trust. It means misconduct that is related to the responsibilities of being an official. Get thee to a class that can explain basic civics to you.

In the meantime, you might want to read Alexander Hamilton explaining impeachment in Federalist #65:

"The subjects of its [impeachment's] jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

If that's too, uh, difficult, then maybe wikipedia can explain it to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crim ... sdemeanors

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

...

"High" in the legal and common parlance of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of "high crimes" signifies activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can only be done by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" when used together was a common phrase at the time the U.S. Constitution was written and did not mean any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt. It meant the opposite. The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes.

I did browse evidence and it appears that Trump's father may have cause for concern, but even though evidence may suggest Trump may have assisted his family commit fraud, it looks difficult to even prove that he did.

Lol.

Hey thanks for the link, one quick question - why did your cut-n-paste dodge this?
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

(again, everything isn't as you say it is)
LOL indeed.

[_cinepro]

Thinking about this, I suspect since Trump made it to the half-way point, he will probably be able to run out the clock on his first term (unless Mueller comes up with something incredible).

His "trial" will be he bid for re-election. And I predict that if the economy stays strong and the Democrats put up a weak candidate, he'll win again.

[_EAllusion]

Incumbent presidents who don't have a recession or unpopular war tend to coast to reelection, but Trump is obscenely unpopular given the fundamentals right now. His unpopularity is a bizarre outlier in prediction models. Even in this era of intense partisanship, he should be putting up Clintonian approval numbers given generic measures of public sentiment. His bad net approval is driven by how personally terrible he is and how unpopular Republican policy is. If I wasn't so unsure of what Russia and our profoundly broken media culture will do, I'd bank on him losing if only because he is doing badly in fairly favorable conditions that are no guarantee to be present 2 years from now. As it stands, I'm coin-flippy about it.

[_Some Schmo]

Thinking about this, I suspect since Trump made it to the half-way point, he will probably be able to run out the clock on his first term (unless Mueller comes up with something incredible).

His "trial" will be he bid for re-election. And I predict that if the economy stays strong and the Democrats put up a weak candidate, he'll win again.

It's depressing, but there is a strong case for this. The Democrats will need someone with both charisma and the appearance of morality, and not afraid to confront Drumpf in a way that doesn't sink the candidate to his level.

That might be a tough ask. You need a clown that's not really a clown, who's better at clowning than this clown.