On the surface, this would almost seem laughable. Could an individual really cause the House of Representatives to hold impeachment hearings for the President of the United States? In 99.9% of the cases, NO, but in this case, very likely, IF. The big “IF” comes in the form of, ‘if‘ the House of Representatives is flipped in November. At present, Forty (40) Republican House Members are not returning. This translates to 40 seats that are up for grabs and we do not have an incumbent to protect this seat. Historically speaking, an incumbent wins re-election 97% of the time. That’s why it is so difficult to unseat a sitting Congressman or Senator.
To cause panic for Republican politico’s, many of these seats are in states which are typically blue by nature. Yes, Pennsylvania went Red in this past election, but it did so by a razor-thin margin as did Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. New Jersey, for instance, is nearly always Blue and in the Garden State, we are losing Four (4) seats which would have been incumbents.
The Democrats are rallying the troops and cheering for a “Blue-Wave,” while the GOP is trying to play-down the Democrat threat. The fact is, the Dem’s only need 23-seats to take control of the House of Representatives. Normally in an “off-year” election, the turn-outs are lower for the party sitting in power. This is how the Republicans seized control back in 2010. The Obama Administration had so infuriated the right that it gave birth to the Tea Party (Conservative Republicans), they rallied nationwide and created a ground-swell. And we all know the rest of the history.
Lest you think that this cannot happen again, allow me to offer up some numbers for you. In the recent primary elections in Georgia, the Democrats turned out 100,000 more voters than they did in 2016. Tragically, the GOP turned out 75,000 fewer voters than they did in 2016. Was it over-confidence by the Republicans? Is it voter apathy or is it just plain laziness? Nevertheless, we are down by 175,000 votes in Georgia and that many votes translate to a “big difference” come November.
So, what about this Steyer guy? Tom Steyer is a multi-billionaire from California. He is a Democrat activist who puts his money where his mouth is. In other words, he is dangerous because he is spreading the California political message across the nation, and he has the money to do it. He is running countless television commercials, dozens and dozens of podcast, newspaper advertisements, billboards, radio ads and I have even seen his commercials on Fox News. This is his argument taken from his website (www.needtoimpeach.com).
DONALD TRUMP’S 8 IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES
- After taking office, Trump asked FBI Director James Comey to abandon the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election—which the FBI had already connected to Michael Flynn.
- When Comey refused to alter course, Trump fired him.
- Trump then admitted the firing was over “the Russia thing” in a televised interview.
- In a tweet months later, he stated that he “had to fire Michael Flynn because he lied to the FBI”— further affirming that he dismissed James Comey in an attempt to quash the FBI’s investigation.
Bottom line: Trump has repeatedly attempted to interfere in the Russia investigation, and admitted as much—that’s a clear case of obstructing justice.
- The Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits the president from accepting personal benefits from any foreign government or official.
- Trump has retained his ownership interests in his family business while he is in office.
- Thus, every time a foreign official stays at a Trump hotel, or a foreign government approves a new Trump Organization project, or grants a trademark, Trump is in violation of the Constitution.
- For example: shortly after he was sworn into office, the Chinese government
gave preliminary approval to 38 trademarks of Trump’s name. Then, in June, China approved nine Donald Trump trademarks they had previously rejected.
- For example: shortly after he was sworn into office, the Chinese government
- And every time he goes to golf at a Trump property, he funnels taxpayer money into his family business—violating the Domestic Emoluments Clause.
Bottom line: Because Trump never divested from his business interests, he violates the Constitution every time the Trump Organization has business dealings with foreign or American government officials.
- In the middle of the 2016 election, Trump’s son was invited to meet with a Russian national regarding “information that would incriminate Hillary and…would be very useful to” Donald Trump
- The Russian, Natalia Veselnitskaya, had ties to high-ranking Kremlin officials.
- Trump Jr. took the meeting. He said, “I love it,” when told Veselnitskaya may have had dirt on Clinton. Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner also attended.
- Federal law prohibits campaigns from soliciting anything of value from a foreign national.
- After journalists broke this story, Trump personally dictated a public statement on behalf of his son that lied about the intended purpose of the meeting.
- This relationship between the Trump team and the Russian national raises questions of whether the campaign aided a hostile foreign power’s active operation against the United States.
Bottom line: Trump tried to cover up his campaign’s contacts with a Russian national—which, at very least, constituted a violation of federal law.
- When Trump gave cover to the neo-Nazis who rioted in Charlottesville and murdered a protester, he violated his obligation to protect the citizenry against domestic violence.
- When Trump encouraged police officers to rough up people they have under arrest, he violated his obligation to oversee faithful execution of the laws.
- When Trump shared anti-Muslim content on Twitter, he violated his obligation to uphold equal protection of the laws.
- This represents a pattern of disregard for some of the president’s basic responsibilities as defined by the Constitution.
Bottom line: Trump has demonstrated a pattern of behavior amounting to advocating violence, undercutting equal protection, and, as a result, failing basic Constitutional duties.
- President Trump’s decision to pardon Joe Arpaio amounted to an abuse of the pardon power that revealed his indifference to individual rights and equal protections.
- Joe Arpaio was convicted for contempt of court after ignoring a court order that he stop detaining and searching people based on the color of their skin, which constitutes a violation of their rights.
- Pardoning this conviction goes against the Fifth Amendment, which allows the judiciary to issue and enforce injunctions against government officials who flout individual rights.
Bottom line: Trump’s pardon of Joe Arpaio violates the Fifth Amendment and harms the guarantee of Constitutional rights.
- High-ranking administration officials involved in foreign affairs have signaled that Trump does not have the capacity to make informed decisions in the event of a military crisis.
- Even worse, his actions could spark a needless confrontation stemming from misunderstanding or miscalculation.
- We see this in full effect every time Trump tweets or makes a public statement taunting and threatening the North Korean regime.
- The president may be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” but that does not give him the right to behave in reckless or wanton ways that put millions of lives at risk.
- If he is unfit to perform his duties as Commander in Chief, he cannot be allowed to remain in the position.
Bottom line: Trump cannot be permitted to recklessly and needlessly endanger millions of Americans with his unstable behavior.
- President Trump has repeatedly pressured the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate and prosecute political adversaries like Hillary Clinton.
- This is not based in concerns with national security, law enforcement, or any other function of his office—it is an attempted power play, plain and simple.
- There’s no question that this constitutes an outrageous and inappropriate abuse of executive branch powers and serves as clear grounds for impeachment.
Bottom line: Trump’s threats against political opponents are threats against American democracy.
- President Trump has repeatedly attacked the concept of an independent press.
- He’s called critical coverage “fake news” and journalists “the enemy of the American people,” made threats to change libel laws and revoke licenses, and his battles with CNN led him to try to interfere in the AT&T/Time Warner merger.
- This demonstrates his unwillingness to respect and uphold the Constitution, and disdain for the crucial foundations to our free society.
Bottom line: Trump’s threats against freedom of the press are also threats against American democracy.
Patriots: DO NOT TAKE THIS LIGHTLY!
This fellow is spending upwards of $30,000,000 to assist Democrats this cycle, not to mention what he is spending on this impeachment campaign. We must mobilize, unify, and get the word out. If we do not, this activist might just prevail.