New Impeachable Offense Just Arrived

[angrychair]

Hey, do you all remember when the WH used to have an east wing? Yea, those were the days.

So apparently, any day now, a judge could rule if it was legal or not to use private funding to get around congressional authorization to tear down the east wing to build a ballroom.
As an added bonus, there apparently isn't any accountability for the "donations" either.
Supposedly the $400 million dollars in "donations" is currently unaccounted for by the WH or the vendor that is "managing" the "donations".
The vendor has stated that it will not disclose the organizations giving donations or the exact amount of "donations". Companies that are believed to have donated are refusing to disclose if they did or not and if they did how much they gave. CREW noted that of the 22 companies that are believed to have given money it was not noted on their lobbying paperwork they are required to file.
So to sum up: tearing down the east wing might have been illegal.
We have no accountability for where the donations have come from, how much was given and by whom and if there was ever any donations at all.

Let's be frank here: this is about as straightforward as corruption ever gets. It's simple enough that anyone can understand it and a very open and shut case can be made for impeachment based solely on this one issue.

Addendum:
The DOJ has filed a request to stay any rulings and allow construction to continue on the grounds of national security.

Reference:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-white-house-ballroom-judge-ruling-b2917465.html#comments-area

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. I think that is one of the things that terrifies Trump about a Dem majority

They can not only investigate his abuses of authority, they can follow the money.

[progressoid]

2. Impeachment is soooo last century.

I recently had a long, drawn out "debate" with another Democrat about how impeachment isn't going to work.

In short, we tried impeachment a few times before and it only made Trump's support rise. We don't want that. Not to mention that impeachment dies in the Senate.

This has to get litigated in the public sphere. That's not something I say lightly considering most of the media is owned and operated by right wing sycophants.

[angrychair]

4. I get the sentiment

But we cannot let corruption go unaccounted for just because it's hard.

I am more than willing for this to go forward and let the chips fall where they may.

Plus, this isn't like the last two. This is very straightforward and so simple even an inbred maga drone can understand it.

This is pure, unaltered corruption and grift.

If Republicans in the Senate want to vote against it, that's fine, as long as they do it on the record..

[Aristus]

16. The problem is, the inbred MAGA drones LOVE the grift and corruption.

They think (as much as they are able to think) that Trump's grift and lawlessness is owning the libs. So they'll keep cheering him on, and on. If their trailers were burning down, and their passel of rug rats was starving, they'd still cheer him on, because that's what brainless evil people do for other evil, brainless people.

[Katinfl]

5. You are soooooo right. Tried it twice before. What makes anyone think the Senate would convict this time?

[Ol Janx Spirit]

18. I agree. Impeachment--at this point in time--shouldn't even be considered for anything but the...

...most egregious thing imaginable--something so obviously horrible that members of the sitting president's own party are calling for it. Otherwise it is just a waste of time and political capital--more likely to be used against the party bringing it than against the perpetrator of the high crimes and misdemeanors.

Republicans are certainly not calling for anything in this case, and it seems too easy for them to brush this off as not even really being part of his duties as president--so nothing to see here. I can easily see them saying that when it comes to Turnip the standard is that only things directly related to the running of the country are fair game--not merely construction projects he might want to pursue. Of course, their standard would be jaywalking for a Democrat, but we expect that hypocrisy--it doesn't change the vote count.

All of the energy the Democratic party expends should be spent pursuing getting public sentiment on the side of undoing the damage that conservatives have done to our democracy over the last several decades--including, but not limited to:
- Getting corporate and dark money out of politics
- Restoring a robust education system in the U.S.
- Getting religion out of the public square
- Restoring balance to the Supreme Court
- Ensuring elections are actually free and fair
- Bringing more voters to the polls so democracy truly has a powerful voice
- Codifying the norms we all took for granted before the era of the Orange Abomination

Drawn out and futile impeachment debates do not further those goals IMO.

[ColoringFool]

3. "[O]n the grounds of national security" means THE BUNKER.

[erronis]

8. Not necessarily. It is just a phrase that is supposed to close down discussions.

It could be a giant cesspool for trump's shits for all we know. And that's "National Security"

[Evolve Dammit]

6. Rec. Very good points

[Fil1957]

7. What? Another one??

[paleotn]

9. Impeachment?!

Can we skip to summary execution? I'm only half joking.

[BaronChocula]

17. I'll go out on a limb and rec n/t

I'll risk the knock at my door.

[GoCubsGo]

10. It was illegal. regardless of all that.

The motherfucker had no authority to demolish federal property without going through the proper channels, including following regulatory rules regarding asbestos and other shit that just released into the environment, and is probably still floating in the air. It's fucking galling that not only will he likely get away unpunished over this, but that we taxpayers are footing the bill for the medical care that keeps that fucking ass criminal alive. Fucking sickening. A pox on everyone who is responsible for this shitstain being in power.

[struggle4progress]

11. "Tearing down half the White House disguises another of my bribery slush funds"

[TygrBright]

12. And this will make what difference? n/t

[eggplant]

13. "but we illegally destroyed the bunker we use for national security!"

"You must allow us to build its replacement! It was the only bunker we have! (Except for all of the other ones)"

Speaking of which, what ARE they using as an alternative to the now-destroyed PEOC? Or were they just hoping nobody would attack us in the meantime?

[GiqueCee]

14. "on the grounds of NATIONAL SECURITY?"...

... Please... the worst threat to "national security" is the psychotic asshole smearing ketchup and his feces all over the Oval Office. And then there's the flying monkeys that enable him.

[Brother Buzz]

15. "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives......

considers it to be at a given moment in history.” - Gerald Ford - 1970

I’ve got marmalade shartcannon penciled in for impeachment in January, 2027.