I had no idea about Nixon. Was that a point at which enough was known about Watergate for the legislators to be leery, or was it just total revulsion at Nixon's record?
There may be some transmission error - the BBC here says it was the 1973 inauguration, but that links to this Phoenix news affiliate which says "first inauguration".
Just confirmed (through the paper) that my Rep won't be there. I suppose I should call my non-asshole Senator*.
*I get an extra surge of seething rage at the fact that Comey's ratfucking got Toomey reëlected. Christ, what an asshole.
This CBS news paper on inaugural history, apparently from 2005, says it was the 1973 one.
One month after the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam, fifteen thousand youthful demonstrators congregated at the Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument to protest the policies of the Nixon administration -- and 80 Congressmen boycotted the inaugural ceremonies -- as Nixon entered his second term.
the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam
The War on Christmas.
I've pinged my Rep. It didn't occur to me to ping the Senators because all the action should be in the House. Have any Senators said they aren't going? But yeah, I'll contact them too.
Oh, hey, something I can actually ask my congresscritters about. So far they've been on top of/in the right direction on everything, such that "go team!" is about the only thing I could have called to say.
Obama just commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.
Obama just commuted Chelsea Manning's sentence.
Oh, wow, that's good news.
It's on the BBC. She'll be out in May. (Presumably commutations can't be reversed?)
It's on the BBC. She'll be out in May. (Presumably commutations can't be reversed?)
Reverse commuting is a thing I've heard of.
I liked the "Lot's daughters" one better, but maybe everybody is too secular to get the reference.
Or maybe it was too early in the evening for incest jokes?
Can someone please elaborate o how he'll be violating the Cinstitution when he takes the oath of office? Is this the emoluments thing?
18.last to 18.first.
I'm sure he'll have lots of other violations but that's the one that kicks in on day 1- he has foreign delegations staying at hotels he owns, from which he profits.
I was honestly expecting 13 to lead to a maths joke.
If your rep is already on record as boycotting call with support, important to let them know you have their backs and build momentum for future opposition.
Senators are probably not persuadable but should still hear from us.
The anti-nixon tally should be beatable and would be news.
To 19, I think the emoluments thing is a bullshit charge. It's ridiculous to say that selling something at the market rate to an agent of a foreign state counts as an emolument. The clause is clearly meant to cover things like James VII being King of Britain while also getting a generous pension from the King of France.
Do you have a clear sense of where you want to draw the line between selling a hotel room at the market price and entering into real estate deals that could be significant in comparison with Trump's net worth? I don't, and I don't think there's a good place to draw it other than at zero.
I mean, reductio ad absurdum, if a serving president had a small dairy farm in upstate New York and sold a pint of milk to a passing Swedish naval attache, does that count as a breach of the clause? He's getting money! From the representative of a foreign power! Or if the Coatbridge council library buys a copy of Obama's book and he gets $1.50 in royalties?
23: I think the line there has to be drawn on the basis of conflicts of interest, not on the basis that it is somehow inherently corrupting to sell stuff to foreigners. But apparently presidents can't have conflicts of interest.
1. Foreign diplomatic and trade delegations are booking rooms, facilities and services at trump's place in dc bc they anticipate it would be noticed if they went to rivals. 2. The nature of the development business is to seek permits, which he will continue to do abroad from numerous foreign governments. 3. This is just what we know about, given *zero* disclosure.
Carter had to sell his peanut farm, for heaven's sake.
26: agreed absolutely that it's incredibly dodgy and corrupt, but it isn't an emolument in the way that's meant: it is a very clear conflict of interest.
26 last to 24 - yes.
We are living through the systematic destruction of the norms that have kept the US political settlement semi-tolerably afloat in the post WW2 era. The only way to stem the slide to authoritarianism is to create a mass opposition. I am working towards that.
But apparently presidents can't have conflicts of interest.
Which suggests that it makes sense to interpret the emoulments clause literally, because there's no other safeguard for that sort of problem.
Impeachment not going to happen until there is a mass movement in opposition already solidly in the streets for when the appropriate scandal presents itself. The task now is to mobilize the mass opposition.
Foreign delegations are attempting to gain favor by taking an action that results in money going to Trump- and he publicly encouraged them to do so. Trump has also made it clear he notices what groups do and don't take the action that results in him getting money. That's a pretty clean example, regardless of what subsequent benefits/punishments Trump does or does not confer.
Also it's arguable whether Trump's DC hotel is market rate. They've been jacking up prices at the bar at least, don't know how it compares to other hotels. I will personally investigate further in a few weeks.
31: I've heard people say they think impeachment within 2 years is possible. But then we get Pence. Probably worse than Jen or Rubio.
The clause says "of any kind whatever" which seems grounds for interpreting its meaning maximally where there's doubt.
33: Domestically, yes, but much less world-on-fire risk.
30: For what would you impeach him on this, if not for the emoluments clause?
Feinstein's office - *Feinstein!!!* - says she is still undecided. Call, people, call!
Trump has already used a congratulatory call from a foreign leader to lobby for expediting permits on one of his projects. That alone ought to be impeachable.
Impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. If there is the political will, Trump will be impeached. If there isn't, it doesn't matter what he does. The acts are secondary at best.
Question for lawyers
With a commutation and not a pardon, can Trump now prosecute Manning for, for instance, treason? Or some other charge?
(If so, Obama just sucked up the good PR without really having any compassion)
Sorry, sorry, where's potchkeh?
I'm an idiot, double jeopardy or military jurisdiction or something, there is no way Manning can be recharged for those crimes. No way.
And in any case, of course Obama believed that there was no way Trump and Sessions etc would be so cruel because Obama, like the rest of us, believes in the essential goodness of people and is an optimist cause he's so goooood.
Sessions will, like us, be happy to let Manning walk. No problem. Obama knew this all along.
And if Manning is prosecuted in six months, well that is completely on the evil Republicans, not Saint Obama.
I'm an idiot, double jeopardy or military jurisdiction or something, there is no way Manning can be recharged for those crimes. No way.
There was gold fringe on the flags at the original court, so she can totally be tried again.
I don't think Trump will prosecute Manning again though, because it would piss off Assange, the guy a) who got him elected, and b) probably has access to the pee hooker tapes.
This time, I really do want to be told I'm full of shit and Manning can face no future charges from the Sessions DoJ. I really fucking do. To get the commutation, and then be recharged is too fucking cruel.
But I am not an optimist, and don't believe in the essential goodness in people.
41. I don't think you can impeach someone for something done when not in office. (Of course, 42 is right, you can impeach for any reason at all, as the Republicans proved. You just have to have the Congress supporting you:
GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
47.last: My favorite lines from Shakespeare.
Also, if I ever have a son I think I'll name him Hotspur. At least as a middle name. Wallaby Jimsonweed Hotspur Quantum Togolosh. Wally for short.
"Hotspur" probably has "Kevin" as his porn star name.
My Democratic Rep just tweeted she's attending the inauguration because "I believe in the dignity and sanctity of the Office of the President." Booo!
So I read like 2 posts and 500 comments over at LGM and I am apparently the only one for whom this scenario is occurring. I say apparently, because the posters are really smart, and are spending a lot of energy defending the commutation and saying a pardon is unwarranted, in other words justifying Obama and probably understanding further Manning prosecution is coming.
Like, what is wrong with me? What is wrong with my mind to imagine this?
In six months or so, when Manning is retried, Obama will grab a mike and say: "In my judgement a pardon was not warranted, but the commutation means that of course I strongly oppose any further charges against Chelsea Manning."
And Democrats will nod and say: "What a wise and good man. Not Obama's fault." And Manning will suffer in prison hell forever.
And I'm thinking if Obama really wanted Manning to escape further prosecution from an evil Sessions DoJ, he would have fucking pardoned her.
I'm thinking: "Obama is a radically cruel prick with a preternatural skill at avoiding blame."
What the fuck is wrong with my mind?
53: Mine announced a while ago that she wasn't going.
She wasn't my preferred candidate in the primary, but I'm warming to her.
I have no idea why I referred to my own comment. I'm too sleepy.
I talk to myself a lot also. Usually don't type to myself, but plenty of muttering.
Do you think Trump's going to pardon Snowdon? He might do it to piss off the intelligence community and reinforce the broader Trump/Russia/Greenwaldian partnership.
I bet Trump pardons his son-in-law's dad and that's about it.
I'm sure he's got lots of cronies with criminal records to expunge.
He should come out swinging by pardoning Bernie Madoff. Then, Kevin Bacon kills Madoff and Trump pardons Bacon.
I wonder if he's been waiting so long to appoint a Secretary of Agriculture because he really is going to pardon Jared from Subway and appoint him, like in that Onion article.
Endorsing everything dq says in this thread.
I'm afraid we're going to find out that emoluments means whatever Trump's Supreme Court says it means.
we're going to find out that emoluments means whatever Trump's Supreme Court Justice Kennedy says it means.
FTFY
So what does Kennedy think about emoluments? Do we have any evidence?
SCOTUS has no role in impeachment aside from the CJ putting on his fancy gold trimmed robe to preside over the Senate trial. I don't see where Kennedy gets a say.
Presumably there would be some sort of lawsuit over whether impeachment is warranted. I'm not sure how that would work, exactly, but I know the SC would have to have the final say.
Like, Congress would vote to impeach, then Trump would sue arguing that they didn't have legitimate grounds to impeach. Then it would be up to the courts.
Gaming out a lot of scenarios that may arise during the Trump era reminds me of how important it is to have an independent judiciary.
I'm sure they'll make their best effort to crush it, so we should keep an eye out and push back whenever possible.
Here I'm thinking particularly of Egypt, where for a while it seemed like the judiciary might have blocked the advent of a new era of dictatorship, but then that's not what actually happened.
64 is probably right. You couldn't have a court case with the President. You might with respect to some other officer, but there's no one to bring it. No, anything that any 34 Republican senators think is OK is OK.
I don't remember if it was Rehnquist or someone else who observed that the failed impeachment against Samuel Chase demonstrated the uselessness of the remedy. Thomas Jefferson probably.
65, 66, 70: Charley's right, I think: the Court should refuse to hear that kind of case as a political question.
There's a hiking site I read instead of actually going hiking (which would take more time than I have now and it's cold anyway). For two days now that site often displays an ad offering free tickets to the inauguration. I hope that means they can't fill the place, but it's probably just some kind of fraud.
There was a thing on fb the other day that the ticket scalpers are getting stuck with tickets they can't move. Which is win-win, if true.
I saw that article and thought it was less than convincing because it was about a guy who bought a ticket from a scalper and was trying to scalp it for more. It read more like this guy was a shitty scalper.
Trump has presumably sold more tickets than there are places to stand in, so it'll all even out with the professional scalpers richer and the shitty ones poorer, as nature intended.
Everybody wants to hear Jon Voight sing.
Maybe he'll shoot Trump with a silenced pistol and laugh maniacally while throwing himself to a feigned death.
74 Even less sympathetic than that is he's a Jewish guy who then decided to advertise the scalped tickets on Stor/mfr/ont.
If they paid too much, they'd still get full value because of having their stereotypes confirmed.
My rep, G.K. Butterfield, has announced he won't be there, along with NC's other 2 Dem House members.
On the other hand, if congress impeached and the president instead of suing just said they were wrong and refused to step down, then the supreme court just say that's a political dispute between the political branches?
What does it matter what the court says?
If the coup is bungled it may end with US Marshals evicting Trump from the White House on live TV, which would be most pleasing.
No, it wouldn't. It would mean the U.S. now has a Praetorian Guard.
How about a 25th amendment remedy? Pence and the cabinet report to Congress that Trump is unfit, on psychiatric grounds.
Quicker than impeachment, probably, but without precedent.
For Trump to be impeached, he would have to behave in such a way as to convince most of the Republican Party that Trump will destroy the Republican Party. I give that about a 25% chance of happening.
86 is interesting, especially since it is entirely plausible that Trump doesn't know the 25th Amendment exists because he doesn't have the attention span to read that far.
I didn't know about the incapacity section of that amendment until after the election.