Well…that didn’t take long.
I’m not sure how long it took conservative publications to call for Obama’s impeachment, but I’m pretty sure that Sub-President Donald Trump just broke some kind of record having a major publication call his impeachment. Yes, you read that right, today, a major publication called on Congress to impeach Trump. Granted, it’s in an op-ed and it’s not like it’s going to convince Republican congressmen to wake the fuck up or suddenly start caring that they’ve let a conman in to the Oval Office, but it’s still very cool seeing Time publish the piece, written by James C. Nelson and John Bonifaz, both of whom are legal scholars with careers working in government and the courts, calling for Trump’s impeachment.
It means there are people paying attention. Just how many is not certain right now, of course, but they’re out there. That’s a good first step.
In the piece, Nelson and Bonifaz argue that Sub-President Trump has been in direct violation of the emoluments clause in our Constitution since he took the oath of office. That clause is meant to do something that I know most of us just simply must not care about…keeping the president from taking foreign bribes. I mean, why on Earth would we give a shit if the guy we elected to run our country is really doing the bidding of a totally different country?
Sure, Vlad Putin might be a violent, murderous fascist. But hey, um, Electoral College, and libtards, and emails, or whatever, right? We don’t care if Putin’s pulling Trump’s strings or has dirt on him right? That’s just crying over spilled Russian whore piss to care about the emoluments clause, right? Well, Belson and Bonifaz disagree.
This clause was included in the Articles of Confederation and, later, in the Constitution itself. It was borne out of the Framers’ obsession with preventing in the newly minted United States the sort of corruption that dominated 17th and 18th century foreign politics and governments — characterized by gift-giving, back-scratching, foreign interference in other countries and transactions that might not lead to corruption but, nonetheless, could give the appearance of impropriety. (source)
They argue that what Trump boasts about most — his multitudinous international business dealings — are what precisely put him in violation of the clause.
Where Trump runs afoul of the foreign-emoluments clause is that, first and foremost, he is a businessman with significant financial interests and governmental entanglements all over the globe. (source)
The piece gives very clear and understandable examples of the specific dealings that Trump has in violation of the emoluments clause. They are breathtaking, and they only listed a smattering of them. They also point out that future business projects under the Trump banner will need other governments to cooperate, setting yup countless other conflicts of interest.
Examples of existing business arrangements that constitute violations of the foreign-emoluments clause include: China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower, and the state-owned Bank of China is a major lender to Trump. Trump’s business partner in Trump Tower Century City in Manila, Philippines is Century Properties, which is run by Jose Antonio, who was just named special envoy to the United States by the president of the Philippines. Further, many Trump Organization projects abroad require foreign government permits and approvals, which amount to substantial financial benefits that also constitute foreign emoluments. (source)
Bonifaz and Nelson point out that what Trump is trying to pass off as a “blind trust” is nothing of the sort, and that only through completely liquidating and reinvesting the capital from the Trump Organization would really satisfy the requirements of the emoluments clause.
In the case of Trump’s ownership in the Trump Organization, this could be achieved only by a complete liquidation of the assets, with the proceeds to be invested by an independent Trustee, without Trump’s involvement or knowledge. Trump’s decision to continue the business of the Trump Organization, continue to maintain his substantial ownership of the organization and turn the management of it over to his children, is woefully inadequate in addressing the emoluments clause. (source)
Granted, I’m a comedian. I make jokes, and I don’t practice law. But the Nelson and Bonifaz piece makes a very plain and simple case, one that intellectually honest Republicans could never deny. The simple truth is that Trump represents a huge risk to our sovereignty. He could be compromised in any number of ways by his business dealings. So don’t take my word for it, or even Bonifaz’s or Nelson’s word for it. But the case is there to be made, and it’s not a pie-eyed one in the slightest.
Keith Olbermann did a really great job of laying out for all of us just how crazy, annoying, dangerously inept, and unprepared the entire Trump administration has been since taking office just a matter of days ago. So I’m going to let you watch this video instead of listing all fifty line items here again. Just know that by the time you finish watching this, if you’re still in favor of Trump being president, I’m going to presume you’re either on drugs, in a coma, or on drugs in a coma.
NEW VIDEO: Paranoid "media won't report terror" claim makes it. Trump's Top 50 Impeachable/Insane Acts since 1/20 pic.twitter.com/2E6h578P33
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) February 7, 2017
The man Olbermann tears to little bits in that video absolutely should not be running our country. He shouldn’t be running a goddamned Dairy Queen on Route 5. But he is indeed the president. There are Breitbarians not only at the gate, but past it and in the castle. The hope of a lifetime is that more publications like Time will publish more pieces like this one, and maybe public pressure can mount on Congress in a way that makes them do their jobs.
…and maybe some simian animals will exit my hind quarters, too.
Follow James on Twitter @JamboSchlarmbo.