My representative in Congress, Gary Palmer, has announced as follows:
I wish to argue against Rep. Palmer.I plan to stand with the Constitution in the impeachment inquiry into President Trump. This is not about high crimes & misdemeanors, but politics. If this progresses to articles of impeachment, I will vote no, consistent with the Constitution.— Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) September 26, 2019
I contend that Trump has wrongfully served his personal interests ahead of the public interest and has failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," for which he should be impeached and removed from office.
This contention has come to a crescendo with the Ukraine matter.
The Ukraine matter, however, comes from a build over 2-1/2 years of Trump in office, and that build needs tracing through.
I voted for Trump because of Clinton corruption
I explain my voting for Trump because of Clinton corruption in my below blog entry:
I had questions about Trump's honesty and motive
In the first Republican debate in August 2015, Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me." (Here's video.)
In the 2016 election, questions were raised about a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, allegedly to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Since Trump had publicly said he gave to politicians to get them do what he wants, I was suspicious of Trump and Bondi's denials of anything untoward happening. (Here's video.)
In the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.
Candidate Trump had a large business empire, and there was an obvious question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest and whether this would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.
An important factor relating to the above question was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether Trump's motive was for the good he wanted to do for the United States and the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, even if he did not win, running for President would be a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").
If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would contribute to Trump, if he won, putting personal interests ahead of the country's interest, and of Trump failing to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."
Motive can be very hard to know. If Trump's motive for the running for President was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden and mislead the voters about his motive.
Trump's nature, and past history and conduct, did not provide confidence about his motive in running for President.
Accordingly, Trump's voters in 2016 trusted that Trump had a "good motive" and not a "bad motive" in running for President.
While Trump's motive was opague in the 2016 election, if Trump won, Trump's actions and conduct after he became President would shed light on his motive in running for President and whether he would put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.
Besides the foregoing concern about Trump's honesty and motive, Trump, in his 30 year history as an international businessman, may have not done everything on the "up and up." Trump had fame in his previous life, and there were voluminous news stories over 30 years about Trump's business and personal life.To the extent there were bad things about Trump's past that were not in the public record, Trump knew what those bad things were, and some Trump associates also possibly knew. To the voters, these were unknowns. If unknown bad things from Trump's past became, or threatened to become, public if he became President, there could adverse consequences for the country, and particularly for Trump's supporters, resulting from Trump not telling the voters all they needed to know. Bad things from Trump's from Trump's past would be particularly prone to Trump putting his personal interests ahead of the country's interests in doing things to prevent the bad things in question from coming to light. For more discussion of this risk, see Reckoning with Trump's past.
Early tell of Trump's conflicts of interest
Given how Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption, an early tell of whether Trump's motive was to serve the country and the American people or to serve his own personal interests, was Trump's own conflicts of interest and how Trump chose to deal with them.
Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out. (For more discussion, read Trump's conflicts of interest problem.)
Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous morality for the public official to separate in his mind the private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.
Trump's business empire presented an extreme case of conflicts of interest after he was elected, and his conflicts of interest should have been a priority consideration for Trump and Congress.
My sense at the end of 2016 was that Trump would choose to put his private interests ahead of the country's interests. I expressed this in the below blog entry I composed on January 1, 2017:
Rep. Palmer was on the House Oversight Committee, and I endeavored to call the importance of Trump's conflicts of interest to his attention, starting in November 2016. See
When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.
This contention has come to a crescendo with the Ukraine matter.
The Ukraine matter, however, comes from a build over 2-1/2 years of Trump in office, and that build needs tracing through.
I voted for Trump because of Clinton corruption
I explain my voting for Trump because of Clinton corruption in my below blog entry:
I had questions about Trump's honesty and motive
In the first Republican debate in August 2015, Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me." (Here's video.)
In the 2016 election, questions were raised about a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, allegedly to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Since Trump had publicly said he gave to politicians to get them do what he wants, I was suspicious of Trump and Bondi's denials of anything untoward happening. (Here's video.)
In the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.
Candidate Trump had a large business empire, and there was an obvious question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest and whether this would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.
An important factor relating to the above question was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether Trump's motive was for the good he wanted to do for the United States and the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, even if he did not win, running for President would be a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").
If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would contribute to Trump, if he won, putting personal interests ahead of the country's interest, and of Trump failing to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States."
Motive can be very hard to know. If Trump's motive for the running for President was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden and mislead the voters about his motive.
Trump's nature, and past history and conduct, did not provide confidence about his motive in running for President.
Accordingly, Trump's voters in 2016 trusted that Trump had a "good motive" and not a "bad motive" in running for President.
While Trump's motive was opague in the 2016 election, if Trump won, Trump's actions and conduct after he became President would shed light on his motive in running for President and whether he would put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.
Besides the foregoing concern about Trump's honesty and motive, Trump, in his 30 year history as an international businessman, may have not done everything on the "up and up." Trump had fame in his previous life, and there were voluminous news stories over 30 years about Trump's business and personal life.To the extent there were bad things about Trump's past that were not in the public record, Trump knew what those bad things were, and some Trump associates also possibly knew. To the voters, these were unknowns. If unknown bad things from Trump's past became, or threatened to become, public if he became President, there could adverse consequences for the country, and particularly for Trump's supporters, resulting from Trump not telling the voters all they needed to know. Bad things from Trump's from Trump's past would be particularly prone to Trump putting his personal interests ahead of the country's interests in doing things to prevent the bad things in question from coming to light. For more discussion of this risk, see Reckoning with Trump's past.
Early tell of Trump's conflicts of interest
Given how Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption, an early tell of whether Trump's motive was to serve the country and the American people or to serve his own personal interests, was Trump's own conflicts of interest and how Trump chose to deal with them.
Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out. (For more discussion, read Trump's conflicts of interest problem.)
Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous morality for the public official to separate in his mind the private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.
Trump's business empire presented an extreme case of conflicts of interest after he was elected, and his conflicts of interest should have been a priority consideration for Trump and Congress.
My sense at the end of 2016 was that Trump would choose to put his private interests ahead of the country's interests. I expressed this in the below blog entry I composed on January 1, 2017:
Rep. Palmer was on the House Oversight Committee, and I endeavored to call the importance of Trump's conflicts of interest to his attention, starting in November 2016. See
For me, it was significant that, after Trump won the election, Trump decided that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). Such an initiative by Trump concerning conflicts of interest might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation.
My conclusion about why Trump chose not to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington DC was that Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.
When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.
This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight.
The record of the past 2-1/2 years presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.
Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats are making up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.
After eight months of Democratic control of the House, Trump seems adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses, and there is no sign that Trump will back off. In the face of this, it should not be thought inconceivable that Congress could conclude that Trump has failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," and should be impeached and removed from office.
Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats are making up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.
After eight months of Democratic control of the House, Trump seems adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses, and there is no sign that Trump will back off. In the face of this, it should not be thought inconceivable that Congress could conclude that Trump has failed to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States," and should be impeached and removed from office.
Other signs of Trump's motive to serve (indulge) himself and not country
1. Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements that he has made to the American people since he becoming President and that he has not corrected. https://washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/…
2. Trump's countless mean, vicious insults and attacks on individuals and institutions with no reasonable, objective basis other than the targets were in opposition to or disagree with Trump, and for the psychological gratification which making the vicious insults and attacks gives to Trump.
3. Trump's attitude that he is always right and only others are wrong; Trump's excessive claims for credit belonging to him for favorable events and circumstances; and Trump putting all blame on someone else for any bad events or circumstances.
4. His deliberate dividing of the country.
Trump does not want to be bound by the rule of law
Trump has pushed strenuously for 2-1/2 years on the boundaries of the rule of law, including in ways previously no one would think a President would actually think about doing.
By words and actions, Trump has given the impression that he believes he has the power and right to shut down any investigation of him, to offer and give pardons to persons who may give testimony against him, to pardon himself and members of his family for any crimes of which they may be convicted, to order investigations of political opponents, and to tell lies to the American people.
Trump took advantage that, for 2 years, the Republicans in Congress would not do and did not do proper oversight to keep Trump from encroaching further and further on the boundaries of the rule of law.
With each encroachment that was not challenged by the Republicans, Trump was emboldened to push further on the norms, which increased Trump's power and made resisting Trump harder to do.
After the 2018 elections, the Democrats got control of the House of Representatives and proceeded to initiate and proceed with proper oversight of Trump.
Trump has not accepted the Democrats doing proper oversight to keep Trump within the bounds of rule of law, and 2019 has been filled with Democrats trying to do proper oversight and Trump obstructing the Democrats in their trying to do proper oversight.
Russia; Mueller investigation, etc.
First, notwithstanding 2 years of Trump's non-stop bombast of "hoax, witch hunt, waste," the Mueller investigation did undeniable service to the country in investigating the Russian interference in the 2016 election, irrespective of the component of the investigation of whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
On the "collusion" front, there were legitimate questions associated with Trump publicly asking Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help him, and why Trump alone questioned what the intelligence community was saying in 2016 about Russia's interference in the election, and then Trump's ensuing, seemingly inexplicable, deference to Putin.
Notwithstanding Trump's bombast of "hoax, witch hunt, waste," the foregoing questions still have not been adequately answered. The Mueller investigation revealed that Trump lied to the country in 2016 about his Trump Organization pursuing the Trump Tower project while Trump was running for President, and further Trump, while President, probably influenced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about that.
With Trump's desire for Trump Tower Moscow, our country still does not know the extent to which Trump endeavored to curry favor with Putin to advance his Moscow project, whether Trump did not want to agree with U.S. intelligence calling out Russia for interfering in 2016 election because of adverse impact on Trump's business aspiration (particularly taking into account that Trump likely did not believe he would win and would immediately renew his pursuit of Trump Tower Moscow), and how all of same compromised Trump in how Trump would deal with Putin after Trump won the 2016 election and became President.
Ukraine is "smoking gun"
Before the Ukraine development, the 2-1/2 year record of Trump's words and actions presents a credible basis for Congress to conclude that Trump has been wrongfully motivated to serve his personal interests over the country's interest (including satisfying vainglorious desires for power, wealth and being the ultimate center of attention, that Trump believes he has the right to do so, and he has egregiously put his personal interests ahead of the country's interest.
Ukraine is now a "smoking gun" reveaing the foregoing about Trump.
With such "smoking gun" evidence, Gary Palmer is doing the wrong thing for his constituents and for the country if he votes against impeachment of Trump.
Rep. Palmer needs to rebut the above
Rep. Palmer needs to
1. State his view whether there are any limitations under the constitution and the laws of the United States on the President using his office to obtain personal financial gain, and whether the Congress has any constitutional duty to oversee that the President does not exceed any such limitation.
2. Either acknowledge that the Republicans, while in control of the House of Representatives, failed to do proper constitutional oversight over Trump using his office to obtain personal financial gain, or else justify that the Republicans properly fulfilled their constitutional oversight duty to assure that Trump did not use his office for personal financial gain.
3. State whether, under the constitution and the rule of law, there are limitations on the President shutting down investigations of the President, offering or giving pardons to persons who may give testimony against President, pardoning himself and members of his family for crimes of which they may be convicted, ordering investigations of political opponents, and lying to the American people.
4. State whether Trump, by his words and actions, has evidenced any belief or agreement that the President is subject to the limitations that Rep. Palmer has indicated in number 3.
5. Rep. Palmer should state whether he believes Trump has an obligation to be truthful to the American people and state his evaluation of whether Trump has fulfilled that obligation.
6. State whether Rep. Palmer thinks it was wrongful for Trump to ask Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump; whether Rep. Palmer believed what the intelligence community was saying in 2016 about Russia's interference in the election and wondered why Trump alone disagreed with what the intelligence community was saying; and whether Rep. Palmer thought Trump's ensuing, deference to Putin was inexplicable.
7. Comment on the Mueller investigation revealing that Trump lied to the country in 2016 about his Trump Organization pursuing the Trump Tower project while Trump was running for President, and on whether Trump, as President, probably influenced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about that.
8. As to each of the possible instances of obstruction of justice set out in the Mueller report, make a recitation of the facts and at the end of the recitation say whether he thinks Trump did or did not do anything wrong for which Trump should be called into account by Congress.
Rep. Palmer needs to rebut the above
Rep. Palmer needs to
1. State his view whether there are any limitations under the constitution and the laws of the United States on the President using his office to obtain personal financial gain, and whether the Congress has any constitutional duty to oversee that the President does not exceed any such limitation.
2. Either acknowledge that the Republicans, while in control of the House of Representatives, failed to do proper constitutional oversight over Trump using his office to obtain personal financial gain, or else justify that the Republicans properly fulfilled their constitutional oversight duty to assure that Trump did not use his office for personal financial gain.
3. State whether, under the constitution and the rule of law, there are limitations on the President shutting down investigations of the President, offering or giving pardons to persons who may give testimony against President, pardoning himself and members of his family for crimes of which they may be convicted, ordering investigations of political opponents, and lying to the American people.
4. State whether Trump, by his words and actions, has evidenced any belief or agreement that the President is subject to the limitations that Rep. Palmer has indicated in number 3.
5. Rep. Palmer should state whether he believes Trump has an obligation to be truthful to the American people and state his evaluation of whether Trump has fulfilled that obligation.
6. State whether Rep. Palmer thinks it was wrongful for Trump to ask Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help Trump; whether Rep. Palmer believed what the intelligence community was saying in 2016 about Russia's interference in the election and wondered why Trump alone disagreed with what the intelligence community was saying; and whether Rep. Palmer thought Trump's ensuing, deference to Putin was inexplicable.
7. Comment on the Mueller investigation revealing that Trump lied to the country in 2016 about his Trump Organization pursuing the Trump Tower project while Trump was running for President, and on whether Trump, as President, probably influenced Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about that.
8. As to each of the possible instances of obstruction of justice set out in the Mueller report, make a recitation of the facts and at the end of the recitation say whether he thinks Trump did or did not do anything wrong for which Trump should be called into account by Congress.
