When will Trump be impeached?

If The Donald is truly just signing any order that crosses his desk the 25th amendment (section 4) lays out the process for a President who is unable to fulfill his duties.

In practice I think that article is designed for use when a president is physically incapable of leading. Like if he gets shot and is brain-dead. There hasn't, before 1967, been a legal way or constitutional basis to briefly relieve the president of his powers so other elected officials can decide what to do.

Think stroke, not stupid when referencing this clause. It has also never been invoked even during all the hoopla that has occurred in the Oval Office between then and now. And according to the article the president just has to (within 21 days) send a written notice that he/she isn't unable to be president.

I am not even sure what the criteria for impeachment is.

Making peace with other countries will do it every time.

The military-security complex needs enemies to justify their $600 billion annual budget.


Threatening the oligarchy's source of income is the biggest offence possible in American politics.

-whines incessantly about "oligarchy"
-unironically defends Trump oligarchy and Putin oligarchy

If The Donald is truly just signing any order that crosses his desk the 25th amendment (section 4) lays out the process for a President who is unable to fulfill his duties.

Amendment XXV

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxxv

Signing laws that push the boundaries (and may later be deemed unconstitutional by the courts) is not grounds for impeachment.

Nor is he "literally signing every order on his desk". It's called the 1st 100 days and executive orders. Some of them I disagree with and I think he's relying to much on EXOs and I wish Congress would curb the scope of EXOs (have to go back in time), but that is not grounds for impeachment.

Your "liberal" (misnomer) hissy fits crack me up. I forsee alot of entertainment coming my way for the next 8 years.

I am not even sure what the criteria for impeachment is.

Who knows, they tried to impeach Bill for getting his knob waxed or whatever.

As far as I know he was impeached by the house. The senate did not confirm the impeachment, which meant he was allowed to finish his term in office whilst being technically impeached already. If the senate confirmed it he would have been required to step down before his term was up.

Your "liberal" (misnomer) hissy fits crack me up. I forsee alot of entertainment coming my way for the next 8 years.

I'd say the over/under is 17 years.

 

Poll: 35 percent say impeachment justified
By Justin Sink - 07/14/14 01:23 PM EDT

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/212152-poll-35-percent-say-impeachment-justified
More than a third of all Americans and two-thirds of Republicans believe Congress would be justified in bringing impeachment proceedings against President Obama, according to a poll from YouGov and the Huffington Post released Monday.

Thirty-five percent of all respondents, including 68 percent of Republicans, say there's reason for Congress to try to remove Obama from office. By contrast, just 8 percent of Democrats say impeachment proceedings are justified.

The results mirror how Americans felt at a similar point during the George W. Bush administration. A 2007 poll from Gallup found that 36 percent of Americans believed Congress had reason to begin impeachment proceedings, including 54 percent of Democrats and 9 percent of Republicans.   

Add in the polls margin of error on the plus side for Obama and Bush and the numbers for all three Presidents look pretty close.  Furthermore, you could probably get at least 30% of Americans in a poll to say that Lincoln should be impeached…….

Every now and then I come back to Waygook looking for PPTs that I can use, and I recently found a new women’s KPOP Game template that I downloaded. Thanks.   KPOP is popular where I am now teaching.  When on the site I also read the non-teaching posts and decided to spend a little time expressing my humble opinions (probably a little too long) regarding several of the Trump discussions.  So, here are some thoughts from a person many anti-Trump people - the elitists - would consider to be “not cool” (e.g. deplorable). 

Although not good for America in the overall big picture, I hope the anti-Trump people - the elitists - continue to drink their Kool-Aid, and persist in not admitting/accepting the real reasons that Trump won.  Although I was not the most robust supporter of Trump on November 8th, I did support him over Clinton, and since the election I have found that my support has grown stronger.  Furthermore, I know that I am definitely not alone in this progression.  One reason for this growing support is that Trump is doing what he said he would do during the campaign.  The horror!  The horror!  A President actually doing what he said he would do during the campaign……

Another very significant reason is that since the election the elitists have been throwing a childish temper tantrum.  Essentially, they have been acting like a six year old at the checkout when his parent tells him he cannot have any candy.  America does not like sore losers.  You lose an election you plan for the next election.  You don’t threaten to destroy businesses unless they pledge allegiance to the elitist doctrine; or threaten Hollywood blacklists for entertaining at the inauguration (wasn’t there a senator from Wisconsin in the fifties who also liked Hollywood blacklists?); or threaten free speech by declaring that free speech only applies to those approved by the elitist free speech manifesto (what happened to the Free Speech Movement founded in the sixties?), or use the elitist media to propagate against Trump and then call it reporting.

I admit that I use to regularly pay attention to such news sources as the NY Times, Washington Post and CNN…….  In fact, many years ago my name was in a story on the front page Sunday edition of the NY Times and I appeared in several CNN news stories.  I actually felt that appearing in these “high” caliber news outlets gave me credibility to speak on certain topics, and many others thought the same.  However, now when it comes to political news I read or listen to these same media outlets in the same manner that I use to read the covers of the tabloids at the checkout counter.  I feel the same about Fox, but don’t consider them to be part of the elitist media syndicate.   Seems like I find myself watching NHK and BBC more than CNN…..

Since the original post included a poll, below is some additional reading for those that are interested.

Does this first article mean that the elitists have created such a hostile environment that Americans are worried what will happen to them if they admit they support Trump?  Will they be assailed on airplanes?  Will their businesses be targeted?  Are they afraid to exercise their right to free speech?  By the way, Politico is not known to lean to the right…..

Donald Trump might be more popular than you think

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/donald-trump-popularity-polling-234630

Once again, there's evidence suggesting traditional polls aren't accurately measuring support for the president and his policies.
By Steven Shepard
02/03/17 07:31 PM EST

Just how popular is Donald Trump? Two weeks into the new president’s term, it’s a matter of some dispute.

Traditional phone polls that use live interviewers — including some of the most trusted polls in politics and media — report limited support for Trump and the controversial executive orders he’s signed. But automated phone and Internet-based surveys tell a different story. Once the element of anonymity is added, the president’s approval ratings suddenly look a lot better………   

This next link should help the elitist Kool-Aid go down better (lol).  This article basically presents what the “major” players predicted for the Electoral College right before the election….

For example, the following is shown:

2016 Presidential Election Forecasts

http://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

1.  Associated Press Electoral Map Analysis
As of November 7th
2.  ABC News Presidential State Ratings
Final Forecast: November 4th
3.  CNN Electoral College Map
Final Forecast: November 4th
4.  NPR General Election Ratings
Final Forecast: November 7th
5.  NBC General Election Battleground Map
Final Forecast: November 7th
6.  Fox News Electoral Map
As of November 7th 

As I previously said my support has grown for Trump since election-day, and I stalwartly believe that many others feel the same.  IMHO, the path the elitists are currently blazing will lead to a second term for Trump (if he wants a second term).  I’m old enough to remember the Presidential elections of 1968 and 1972.  I’m not talking about what happened in 1974, but how a candidate who barely won the popular vote in 1968* - don’t think there’s been another political year like it in my lifetime (tumultuous) - won 49 States in 1972** (e.g. the country was ready for a little tranquility but the Left didn’t want to give it……).  I believe that in 2016 Clinton and the Democrats forgot how a person actually wins the Presidency, and that they are on the same course for 2020.

*1968 Popular Vote    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
Nixon - 43.42%
Humphrey – 42.72%
Wallace – 13.53%

**1972 Popular Vote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
Nixon – 60.67% (49 States)
McGovern – 37.52% (1 State – Massachusetts)

Liberal-fascists, elitists, nazis....FFS did you people actually graduate from university? Interior design maybe?

Liberal-fascists, elitists, nazis....FFS did you people actually graduate from university? Interior design maybe?

+1
All this partisan name calling is so childish. Partisans are suckers. Rational people vote on platforms, not by their party affiliations. Your entire family has voted blue/red for 20 generation? Who the hell cares? Spend a day figuring out what the current platforms are, decide which will benefit you/your country the most, and vote that way.

Politics has turned into just another sport: pick a team and back it no matter what. 

Donald Trump should be referred to the federal ethics office for his tweet attacking department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, a Democratic senator has suggested.

Bob Casey pointed the US Office of Government Ethics towards Trump’s message in a tweet, which read: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump’s message was later retweeted from the official presidential account, @potus.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ethics-bob-casey

Trump has refused to sell off his many businesses despite demands from critics that he do so to avoid multiple conflicts of interest.

He said on 11 January he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand control to his two oldest sons Donald Jr and Eric, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, during his presidency.

Trump’s web of international companies remains opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.

Norman Eisen, Obama’s chief ethics counsellor, told Associated Press: “The Trumps are using the White House like the Kardashians used reality TV, to build and vastly expand their overall business enterprises.”

I'm sorry Ivanka, but if you've tried to always make your father do the right thing, then you've failed miserably.

Stop being an elitist. You are only complaining because Hillary lost. We love Trump and you lost!!  Get over it.


Just kidding. I can't understand how people can't differentiate between their politics (party) and what is unethical, immoral, and more than likely unconstitutional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANWpIm6Jfc

Donald Trump should be referred to the federal ethics office for his tweet attacking department store Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, a Democratic senator has suggested.

Bob Casey pointed the US Office of Government Ethics towards Trump’s message in a tweet, which read: “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Trump’s message was later retweeted from the official presidential account, @potus.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/08/trump-nordstrom-tweet-ethics-bob-casey

Trump has refused to sell off his many businesses despite demands from critics that he do so to avoid multiple conflicts of interest.

He said on 11 January he would maintain ownership of his global business empire but hand control to his two oldest sons Donald Jr and Eric, along with Trump Organization chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, during his presidency.

Trump’s web of international companies remains opaque since he has refused to release his tax returns, which experts have said would provide a clearer view of his business interests.

Norman Eisen, Obama’s chief ethics counsellor, told Associated Press: “The Trumps are using the White House like the Kardashians used reality TV, to build and vastly expand their overall business enterprises.”

I'm sorry Ivanka, but if you've tried to always make your father do the right thing, then you've failed miserably.

Stop being an elitist. You are only complaining because Hillary lost. We love Trump and you lost!!  Get over it.


Just kidding. I can't understand how people can't differentiate between their politics (party) and what is unethical, immoral, and more than likely unconstitutional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vANWpIm6Jfc

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

You could be excused for thinking that Trump's understanding of democratic principles like the separation of powers and rule of law is on par with that Russian troll Aurata.
 Unless he starts showing some deference towards the judiciary, it seems only a matter of time before a major f*ck up that could trigger an impeachment, where even some of his fellow republicans in the legislature abandon him. I guess it's a matter of if he loses enough of his  base of deplorables, which do seem rather tolerant of rank stupidity thus far. Birds of a feather, some might say!

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment. 

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment.

A simple yes or no would suffice.  Could you answer the question?  And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment.

A simple yes or no would suffice.  Could you answer the question?  And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).

You can Google all of 45's conflicts of interest, all the reasons that justify impeachment.

Just your example, though. Yeah, he tweeted about something that happened to his family. He used his personal account. Then he retweeted it from his POTUS account. There's no justifying that. That's unethical.

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment.

A simple yes or no would suffice.  Could you answer the question?  And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).

Convince me that his intention was categorically and demonstrably meant to benefit her business interest and not just him showing disappointment at their decision. I might then agree that it could be grounds for impeachment. You should also be realistic and know that's not going to happen under the current balance of power in congress. Presidents don't generally get impeached because of vague ethical quagmires. There has to be substantial evidence of wrong doing to sway congress.

Does this first article mean that the elitists have created such a hostile environment that Americans are worried what will happen to them if they admit they support Trump?  Will they be assailed on airplanes?  Will their businesses be targeted?  Are they afraid to exercise their right to free speech? 

I agreed with basically your whole post.

But that part is especially important. Somehow the liberals have become the fear-based party. People ARE afraid to click like on something Milo says on say Facebook, or to talk about how they love Trump's policies, or to talk about men's rights, etc. This also makes any polling of Trump's popularity meaningless, as people are seriously afraid of getting labeled a "white supremacist" or "misogynist" or whatever meaningless insult.

But this also works for Team Trump's strategy, the silence from the right leads the "radical alt left" into arrogance, thinking everyone agrees with them, continuing to insult everyone (but minorities and women), while a growing part of the country want them to STFU ASAP.

These dummies still don't understand you can NOT win with just minorities. Men, white people, and conservatives still (barely) get voting rights.   

Well, because politicians and the public in general are selective about what constitutes unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behavior based on their partisanship. There will never be a universal consensus about what is considered moral or even ethical because morality is liquid and evolves with the prevailing zeitgeist and differs from beholder to beholder. This is why you have the left displaying moral outrage and the right keeping silent and then 4 or 8 years later the exact opposite. This is the left's time to display their moral outrage despite their silence on similar ethical question prior to this election. This is cognitive dissonance. Is Trump's behavior really any worse than the unethical, immoral and unconstitutional behaviors of his predecessors going back to the founding? I don't think so because there were some really questionable actions in the past. Yet, the only presidents to be formally impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. The point is if you want Trump's impeachment you will need a majority in the house and senate, not vague allegations and pleading to the public's sense of morality.

So, you have no problem with No. 45 using his power (as the most powerful leader on the planet) to promote his daughter's business interests?

The president is still a member of the public and still human, right? Is it really unethical to tweet your disappointment about something that happened to your family? Is he allowing business interest to hold sway over his office? Your arguments are circumstantial. Do you apply the same standards to past presidents or other elected officials, even the ones you support? The thing is, the left is really digging through the scrap heap to find something to pin on the POTUS so they have a reason to raise impeachment proceedings or probably more realistically a chance in the next election. It seems to me that all other avenues of stopping him from dismantling Obama's legacy are unattainable given the strength of the Republicans in the house and senate, thus all they have left is to promote the idea (with the aid of the willing media), in the hearts and minds of the public that his behavior is so abhorrent that he needs to be removed prior to serving his full term. It smacks of desperation. But if he does something as morally corrupt as Bill did, I will definitely join call for his impeachment.

A simple yes or no would suffice.  Could you answer the question?  And if you don't have a problem with 45's behaviour, please explain why it's okay (in your opinion).

Convince me that his intention was categorically and demonstrably meant to benefit her business interest and not just him showing disappointment at their decision. I might then agree that it could be grounds for impeachment. You should also be realistic and know that's not going to happen under the current balance of power in congress. Presidents don't generally get impeached because of vague ethical quagmires. There has to be substantial evidence of wrong doing to sway congress.

That's all terribly interesting, but again, yes or no is all that's required.  So, if you don't mind?