re: #223 lawhawk

Greets and saluts from the resistance. Trump’s up early this morning railing on the NY Times and the federal judge who issued a nationwide TRO against Trump’s Muslim ban.

Trump’s statements against the judge’s actions include calling him a “so-called judge”. Considering the judge was a Bush appointee with similar qualifications as Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Gorsuch, I’d start referring to Gorsuch in the same manner. He’s a so-called judge.

Still, this is what Trump does. He doesn’t like what a judge does (see Curiel, judges who rule on Trump’s shady business dealings) and Trump blusters with BS and venom about how everything is so unfair to him. Now in the WH, those statements are attacks on the separation of powers, and if he defies the judge’s orders it’s once again a violation of his oath of office. That’s the kind of thing that is an impeachable offense, if only the GOP does their jobs and upholds their own oaths of office.

The Times meanwhile ran a piece showing that Trump’s still running his businesses despite claiming that he’s divested. His top corporate lawyer and his son are still closely involved in both businesses and working with Trump personally. These are the very conflicts of interest everyone was warning of before the election. The Emoluments Clause is once again in play here - again an impeachable act.

And, from what I understand, the failure to record the phone call with Putin is illegal. There is enough now, I think, for impeachment.