Trump, the Mobster, Will not be Impeached (easily) 

The purpose of this article is not to argue for or against any of the potential accusations against Trump (collusion or obstruction), nor is it to support/oppose the idea of his impeachment.   The purpose, rather, is to make the argument that Trump is — in simplest terms — a gangster and the reason he will not be impeached is not because he is innocent, but rather it is because the subtext of the the art of the deal is a dog whistle for how to legitimately apply mobster techniques to business.  And now that he is the president, it stands to reason that he will apply these same techniques to politics.

The strongest argument against Trump will be the obstruction of justice argument, but what the left-leaning torch-mob is failing to grasp when they go down this path, is that Trump has built his entire career on the back of his only true skill-set — finding methods to legally obstruct justice.  In consideration of the thousands of lawsuits that stem from small business that he put out of business by drowning them in legal costs after he defrauded them or the many accusations of sexual assault, surely if the world was just he’d be poor, imprisoned and the very willing bitch of some large black man who had his application rejected by a Trump-owned apartment building in the 1970’s because of the color of his skin.  But, the world is not just, so I will not revel in fantasy.

Firstly, as we have learned from the recent leaks about Comey and his “memos” is that anything and everything that Trump potentially said that could be incriminating was said when it was just the two of them.  Now, recall that backyard BBQ scene in Goodfellas where Henry explains how Paulie operated by only talking to people one-on-one and only dealt with a small handful of people who he trusted (  So Trump mobster trick #1: condition who you openly speak with to those who are loyal and trusting, and whenever possible speak one-on-one so it’s always a matter of he-said/she-said. 

Secondly, Trump all-to-casually suggested that he may have recorded Comey without his knowledge.  This leads us to mobster trick #2: do whatever you can to ensure you ‘have something’ on the people you condition into your ‘inner-circle’ so if they ever turn on you, you can intimidate them into not talking.  After Trump posted that tweet, many articles came out about how Trump would commonly record phone calls (without their knowledge) in business as a means of creating leverage against them.   In other words, when people deal with Trump — and this happens almost immediately — he automatically and instinctually conditions all engagements by strategically concealing and revealing certain things to create trust and loyalty, whilst always maintaining the upper-hand of knowledge and power.

Thirdly, if you Google ‘Trump not using email’ you will find dozens of articles going back a decade discussing how Trump in 2008 did not have a computer in his home or in the office, and it was not until 2013 that he started using email, but even then (and now) he uses it very sparingly.  He generally prefers to speak with people in person and face to face.  Most of the articles accredit this to him being old-school and just an old-man who is unwilling to adapt with technology.  However, for example, my dad (who is around the same age as Trump) does no text and does not email (and when he does it is odd and confusing, because he does not understand the medium) — however, my dad does not use twitter either.  I do not think you can accuse somebody who is that active on Twitter of being a technophobe without some seriously unjustified qualifier.  We can return to Goodfellas again to explain this third technique.  There is a scene in Goodfellas where they explain that Paulie never uses the phone, but instead he talks to people one-on-one and then they go and act-on his wishes and use phones as necessary.  The reason for this is to limit opportunities for the police to ‘phone tap’ and record Paulie making illegal demands/requests of his foot-soldiers.  Trump in the modern era, applies this technique to email.  Ergo, mobster trick #3: ensure there is no paper trail of communication to connect you with the actions of the people serving under you.

Fourthly, Trump intentionally and vigorously stirs the pot of truth.  If the previous points were accurate then it could be counter-argued that Trump very openly illustrates his desire to obstruct justice and intimidate witnesses (as it follows from his interviews and Twitter feed), so this flies in the face of saying he prefers to speak one-on-one and intentionally limit his audience. Mobster trick #4: overtly reveal what is in the left hand so they become uninterested in your right hand.  This also can be articulated as keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.  So, in this sense, he is intentionally revealing to his enemies (the left-leaning media and democratic party) as an act of keeping them close and acutely focused on exactly what he wants them to acutely focus on.  This was best illustrated in Breaking Bad in how Gustavo was active friends with the DEA and contributed to their charities and made a huge effort to be seen as a friend to the police.  Granted, Trump is doing it in a completely different way but the result is the same.  And, lastly, from the same pieces of evidence we get to mobster trick #5: obfuscate!   Trump has — very intentionally I posit — strategically deploys a very odd range of tweets that often make an inference from falsely attributed or non-existent evidence and then sometimes openly speak his utterances and opinions, or just his general disposition or judgments towards something specific.  If a lawyer — in an obstruction of justice case — ever wanted to hang their hat on something Trump said on Twitter, the defense would easily be able to produce literally dozens of tweets that are unsubstantiated, false, mere musings or are outright jokes — to, in other words, obfuscate the idea of Truth within the entire gamut of his twitter feed.  If so many of his tweets are so blatantly and demonstrably false, then how can we hang any credibility on any of it?  Maybe it’s all a farce — ahem, reasonable doubt.

In conclusion, maybe it is possible that somebody from the inner-circle will put party over president, or country over party/president and then maybe, and subsequently, we will learn what skeletons are hiding within the closets of his loyal staff.   Maybe the FBI or Senate or Congress will get wise and will stop trying to follow the witness-trail, but will instead follow the dead-Russian-trail and let that dictate the money-trail.  As we all know from the countless mob-movies we have seen (and from history), it is usually a dead body that piques the interest of law enforcement, but then in the end, its always white-collar crime that sinks the ship.  But, nonetheless, it will take a lot of political ammo to sink the ship of a mobster with executive privilege — the stress test of our justice system and democracy will ensue.

Children of the GOP

Years ago while having lunch with a conservative colleague I found myself in a rather heated discussion over the executive orders signed by President Bush and my colleague argued that the “president should be able to do what he needs to do, to protect the nation”.   I told him he is welcome to believe that, but with heavy hand I warned that expansion of power by the executive branch is a pendulum that swings both directions.

Conservatives and biased pundits and news organizations are asking congress to push for impeachment of the President, and this is the question I am going to explore. I have started seeing this idea of impeachment start to show up in Tea Party Facebook posts and I have poked and prodded for somebody to explain to me, explicitly, the reasoning behind this and I am generally retorted with comments such as, “if its obvious then you are too stupid to understand.”   And although I am just a cowardly, pacifist, bleeding heart liberal with a passion for philosophy- I will try my best to understand this.

I found very few websites that actually illustrate the High Crimes of Obama and if I have failed to properly frame the case against the president- I welcome any comments or feedback to this.  On the website petition2congress there is a petition boasting 51 reasons to impeach Obama, although they only have 14 items on the list- but I will explore these in depth.[1]

  1. Obama and unrepentant terrorist William Ayers misappropriated over 300 million dollars in donations meant for the education of Chicagos minority students. They routed the money to Obamas community activist buddies who then tried to turn the students in radicals. The program was a total failure.

There is no evidence to support this claim, hence conjecture.

  1. Obama, as an Illinois State Senator, redirected tens of millions in Illinois tax dollars to Valerie Jarrett and Tony Rezko, to provide housing for low income families. They returned the favor with political donations. The housing units were built with cheap materials and labor and are uninhabitable after a mere 10 years of use.

There is no evidence to support this claim, hence conjecture.

  1. Obama accepted millions in illegal campaign contributions from foreign credit cards after the credit card filters used to screen out foreign money, was switched off. This also allowed domestic donors, who were over the legal limit, to contribute more.

There is no evidence to support this claim, hence conjecture.

  1. Obama and SecState Clintons efforts to bring the US under the UNs Small Arms Treaty are direct violations of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

If this were a ‘direct’ violation of the 2nd amendment the 2nd amendment would have to say ‘No International Arms Treaty shall be signed’. However, there is no need to bicker over language. The right to bare arms, when taken for the letter of the law, means we have the right to bare arms. Nuclear arms? Ground-to-air missiles? Most people would resolve in saying it’s unreasonable for citizens to be armed with nukes, which implies there is a limit on the 2nd amendment. So, we are not trying to decide IF we limit the 2nd amendment, but rather we are trying to decide what limits are reasonable.   Disagreeing with the gun control protocol of the UN resolution is not a high-Crime, it’s just a difference in opinion in where the 2nd amendment limit is.   What weapon is reasonable for a citizen is a rather subjective question- difference in opinion is bound to ensue. This is a political disagreement- not grounds for impeachment.

  1. Obama attempted to move control of the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department to the White House, to be managed by then Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

First off- ‘attempted’ is key. Even IF this was an impeachable offense, which it is not, you can’t impeach for thoughts. Second, there is no evidence that this is a High Crime.

  1. Obama had provided under the radar amnesty to illegal immigrants by allowing ICE Director John Morton to prohibit ICE officers from enforcing US immigration laws.

The executive branch is not constitutionally bound to enforcing all laws equally. Resources generally prohibit public agencies from pursuing every lawful act and from this, priorities are created. Disagreeing with priorities is an issue of politics- not High Crimes.

  1. Obama allowed USAG Holder to ignore the violation of US immigration laws in the sanctuary cities, i.e.,San Francisco, etc.

Refer to response from #6

  1. Obama has failed to defend US soil in Arizona as Mexican troops bring illegals and drugs into the USA, crossing the border doing so. This is a direct violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Article IV Section 4 of the constitution is actually a request of the legislative branch to act to defend from violent attacks against the states and the executive branch only intervenes of the legislative branch cannot convene. This issue is not of immediacy and the executive branch as actually put dubious amounts of pressure on congress to write an immigration reform bill.   If anything this is an argument to impeach congress.

  1. Obama illegally fired the IG Walpin for investigating Obamas buddy, Mayor Kevin Johnson (Sacramento), for fraud (850K) with AmeriCorps.

IG Walpin filed a lawsuit for being wrongfully terminated and the lost the suit, due to lack of evidence to support his claim.

 10. Obama is in contempt of Federal court for his illegal oil drilling moratorium in the Gulf.

If he is in contempt of court, then the court shall bring him in for contempt.  The requirement of High Crimes & Treason is defined on the premise that the president is not acting in the interest of the public.  If Obama feels that acting in contempt of court is in the better interest of the public, then disagreements to that regard are a difference of opinion.

11. Obama spent a month as the UN Security Council Chair in 2009, which raises the question of his conflict of interest between the US and the UN. This is also likely a violation of his Oath of Office as the UN conflicts with our Constitution on many levels, i.e., LOST, UN Small Arms ban, etc.

Please note the language: ‘likely’ a violation. If it is a violation then explain and cite. This claim is just a fishing expedition.

 12. Obama signed an EO in December 2009 that allows Interpol to operate in the US without oversight by Congress, courts, FBI, or local law enforcement.

It is ok to disagree with this, but is it a High Crime? Prove it?

 13. Obama and SecState Clinton misappropriated, er, used $23 million in US taxpayer funds to help Obamas homeland of Kenya move to a communist nation where the freedom of speech, private property rights, and other rights are subservient to social justice. This includes the fact that the Kenyan constitution adopted Sharia Law, which violates the basic human rights of women.

Evidence? Conjecture.

 14. Obama was likely involved with then Governor Rod Blagojevich to try and sell his Illinois Senate seat, i.e., pay to play. Jesse Jackson Jr is under investigation for

And, again ‘likely’?   More fishing.

I was doing my best not to create a straw man argument and this was the best and most explicit lists illustrating his impeachable offenses.  Many other lists included such childish comments, like not providing a birth certificate.   The reality of the issue is the majority of people do not understand that the notion of High Crimes and Treason is not a commonly occurring offense and is very hard to prove.  There has to be pretty solid proof that the president was intentionally not acting in the interest of the American Public- if you disagree with this decisions (politically speaking)- well, that is you just disagreeing.  I do not think people understand that impeaching a president is a shameful act and regardless of politics, it is not something we should EVER want.   The only reason these rumors and ideas get tossed around so much is because they rally the GOP and Tea Party base and it will get people out to vote in 2016.  It is in the better interest of the GOP to fan the flames of these ideas- regardless if there is any truth to it.   President Bush mislead the American public into getting involved into two wars that cost billions of dollars and claimed the lives of thousands of men and women, this complaint was brought to the judiciary committee for an impeachment hearing and was rejected.  If putting our country into war under false pretenses is not a High Crime, then I am not sure how anybody could argue that providing amnesty for immigrant children would be.

If you disagree with the politics of Obama, then please step back and look at the problems he is trying to solve and bring a workable solution to the table.   Conjecture, finger pointing and name calling does nothing but lower our political discourse to the standards of a elementary school classroom.

Grow up.