Although Donald Trump inherited millions of dollars from his father Fred, he made his start in the New York real estate business as a slumlord evicting unfortunate tenants who got in his way. It would be incredibly ironic if his presidency were to end with his eviction from the White House.
The President Lived by the Eviction Notice in the 1970s. Will He Die By One in the 2010s?
15 Comments. Leave new
Νέμεσις is a bitch. On the other hand, in the event Mr Trump is evicted from the White House, perhaps he will receive free room and board at another federal institution ? ὕβρις, as the tragedians taught us, never ends well….
Henri
… but *highly* entertaining …
Even ignoring some of the more flamboyant accusations, we’ve got him dead-to-rights on severe campaign violations and the emoluments clause. Between Manafort & Cohen we’ve got enough evidence of tax evasion and other business badness to put him away.
I’ve heard it argued that his payment to Stormy DDD constitutes bribery and is therefore an act of treason. I always that that meant bribes *accepted* by the actor, but I’ll take whatever I can get to see the stoopitt bastid go down in flames.
To CrazyH:
Please familiarize yourself with the definition of treason. This is constitutionally limited to
“ONLY”:
1) making war against the US
2) aiding enemies of the US
The constitutional definition is Article III, Section 3.
Federal statutory provisions (not necessarily all) follow:
a) tinyurl.com/lh3mxtq
b) tinyurl.com/ox6bdww
(put addresses shown in browser address bar.)
You should also immediately stop listening to those who would argue that bribery = treason. (It would be interesting if you revealed your “source” on this.)
Don’t get me wrong. I would quite enjoy a treason prosecution against His Hairness.
Assuming (tenuously & trepidatiously) that those terminally engulfed by His Hairness Derangement syndrome can stipulate that HH is clear of sub-definition “1),” above, it would be instructive to know, in regards a prosecution on sub-definition “2),” above, if an “enemy” of the US is restricted to a sovereign nation against which legitimate war has been previously declared … or, alternatively, can be any “enemy” designated by media, the recent electoral opponent of the accused, the opposing political party of the accused, a combination of the above or etc., etc., etc?
Note 1: Treason is also a state crime and may be prosecuted at that level. To wit, Zephyr Teachout, an actual*** progressive is running for NY Attorney General and, wonders never cease, has been endorsed by the NY Times!?!
Note 2: bribery is listed with treason among the alleged crimes justifying impeachment. And, presumably, bribery might well be used while committing the separate and distinct crime of treason.
———————-
*** To my knowledge has not yet issued a public, fawning paean to the memory of the ultra-execrable John McCain.
Important points, falco, not least that on who gets to define «treason». In a monarchy, indulging in sexual intercourse with the queen is treason, if one is not the king (or hasn’t been engaged to help him produce a heir) ; but I’m not certain that Stormy Daniels/Stephanie Gregory Clifford counts in this connexion…. 😉
Henri
@falco – Point taken. You got me on a technicality – “bribery” is specifically listed under ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ – still Very Bad Things, and the perps can still win a free vacation at Club Fed. (Hypothetically. Don’t hold your breath.)
I still hold that it means ‘taking bribes’ rather than ‘paying bribes’ – even though it isn’t specifically spelled out.
Most people today don’t really understand the restriction the founders were trying to make while defining ‘treason.’ At the time ‘High Treason’ was understood to be a crime against the person of the king while ‘Low Treason’ was a crime against the person of some lesser nobility.
The point that they were trying to make was that treason was to be limited to a crime against the country. not a person. I really don’t think that they were trying to provide an exhaustive list. (even though Scalia would have argued they were …)
Hi Henri,
My points, perhaps lost in the verbiage:
1) the constitution defines treason and that definition is cannot be confused with bribery
2) WHO/WHAT defines an “enemy”
I would note that at the constitution makes moot, for the US, prior monarchical definitions of treason.
Or, we’d better hope, so or else, His Hairness will be trying his opponents for it.
To CrazyH:
Hmmm, quite a tap dance!
You say: “I still hold that it means ‘TAKING bribes’ rather than ‘paying bribes’ … ”
(my emphasis)
So we are to understand that “you’ve heard people argue” that Ms Daniels should be charged with treason?
> So we are to understand that “you’ve heard people argue” that Ms Daniels should be charged with treason?
Wait … WHAT?!
Just to start with, I feel no responsibility to document an argument I explicitly stated I disagreed with. But since you asked so nicely here – Google is your friend.
That said, I’ve got no friggin’ idea how you managed to misinterpret my words so badly. NO. We are not talking about Stormy D. The conversation (as well as the subject cartoon) is about Duh Don.
ergo – it’s about whether Duh Dun committed treason, high crimes, misdemeanors or mister demeanors.
Are you with me so far?
Okay, so we’re talking about whether the HC&Ms clause is about DUH DON accepting bribes or paying bribes.
Still with me?
I do not believe that it means paying bribes. Ergo if Duh Don paid a bribe, that would not qualify as “high crimes or misterdeamors”
Which is what I said in the fist place.
To CrazyH:
In chronological order:
1) “I’ve heard it argued that his payment to Stormy DDD constitutes bribery and is therefore an act of treason.”
2) “We are not talking about Stormy D.”
3) “I do not believe that it means paying bribes.”
There is ONLY evidence of a bribe PAID to Ms Daniels. We’ve had an extended “discussion” about evidence or lack thereof. There is an interesting twist here: now there is evidence that I will not dispute but you choose to ignore it???
The rest is your obsessive, if totally unsupported, hope … including, but not restricted to “emoluments.”
Note that Cornell Law web site states that NO case involving emoluments has ever reached SCOTUS.
The entire government is an emoluments generating scheme.
Even if you kicked, screamed and turned blue sufficiently to get an indictment AND it went to SCOTUS it would lose 6-3, at best.
@falco –
At this point, I have absolutely no idea WTF you’re talking about. I can’t even tell whether you’re arguing with me or agreeing with me.
Best response I have is “Say no to drugs”
It’s not just that he’s a crooked politician – it’s that he’s so BAD at being a crooked politician. You can’t handle international politics the same way you bully people in the boardroom.
Have your consigliori pay off your mistress on the eve of the election? I mean c’mon! Offer her a government position. (“Missionary”) Disappear her. Have the boys pay her a visit. If you’re gonna pay her off, then at least make it enough to outbid the competition. She can sell the book deal for far more than what he paid for her silence.
Have your SON do a dirty deal in the privacy of your own tower? Oh, hell no – he should have sent someone he could plausibly deny, some low-level functionary preferably meeting in another country. (you know, like his mancrush did…)
Fire an investigator? YOURSELF? No shit? How about have another spook plant koddi prin on his hard disc & have yet another spook find it? You’ve not only eliminated a thorn in your side, but destroyed his life. Such a deal!
If you’re gonna violate the emoluments clause, you should at least take your name of the god damned tower.
“It is not enough to avoid wrongdoing, we must avoid the appearance of wrongdoing” – Kelvin Throop III
“We must avoid the appearance of wrongdoing” – Richard M. Nixon.
“FAKE NEWS!” – Hair Furor mit dem kleinen Schwanzstucker
OK, CrazyH,
Let’s try this one.
You seem to have a blind spot about US foreign policy.
Your quote: “You can’t handle international politics the same way you bully people in the boardroom.”
To the contrary, US foreign policy is nothing BUT high stakes bullying. It has been that way for decades.
In that sense, unfortunately, His Hairness is perfectly suited to conduct US “international politics.”
«To the contrary, US foreign policy is nothing BUT high stakes bullying. It has been that way for decades.
In that sense, unfortunately, His Hairness is perfectly suited to conduct US “international politics.”» Indeed. The distinction being that, unlike his predecessors, who ignored international institutions only when those could not be forced to follow US «leadership», Mr Trump makes a virtue of necessity and is in the process of dismantling these institutions….
Henri
falco – you seem to have a blind spot concerning my posts. You keep looking for an argument where none exists.
The point you obviously missed was “the SAME WAY as in the board room” m’kay?
Yes, US foreign policy is all about bullying. But the bullies in the past have always gone about it in a much, much, DIFFERENT manner.
That’s the point. When you can demonstrate that:
A) you understand my point
B) you see some flaw in that point
Then we will have something to debate.
m’kay?
Out of curiosity, falco – did you even read the rest of my post? Starting with the first sentence:
“It’s not just that he’s a crooked politician – it’s that he’s so BAD at being a crooked politician.”
Followed by four examples of him doing a BAD job of acting like a crooked politician along with examples of how an EXPERIENCED crooked politician would handle the same situation.
G.W. Bush called NK part of the Axis of Evil. THAT in and of itself was a huge step backwards. He’s busy threatening other folks, yet took time out to insult the regime in an abstract manner. That was a mistake, it inspired Kim to double down on his nuke program. Bush was not an experienced crooked politician. An experienced one would have used third person passive voice in public and covert back channels to communicate directly.
Along comes Trump who publicly threatens fire & brimstone. Even Bush wasn’t that stupid. Of course the threat was always there, but an experienced crooked politician knows better than to say it out loud.
Even worse, Trump did it in a late-night tweet. That is not an action of an experienced crooked politician. It is an act of a petulant fourteen-year-old striking out at his classmates.
NOW do you understand my point?