After the House of Representatives voted to impeach failed, one-term former president Donald Trump in 2019 for pressuring Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of his Democratic presidential rival, Joe Biden, the clueless Trump wanted to sue Congress for taking such an action, even though impeachment is clearly spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
That, according to HuffPost, is one of the revelations in a new book from New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America.
“I’ll just sue Congress. They can’t do this to me,” Trump said, according to excerpts from Haberman’s book.
And that’s not the only head-shaking moment in Haberman’s book.
There was also a scene in debate prep when Trump humiliated himself, which seems to be the only thing he excels at.
The book also details comments by Trump during preparation for a debate in which former Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus ― while pretending to be a transgender student ― asked the then-candidate if she could use the girls’ bathroom, CNN reported.
“I have a question, cocked or decocked?” Trump reportedly asked before receiving “blank stares” and making a “chopping gesture.”
If you thought you’d heard about all of the ridiculous and asinine suggestions possible from Congressional Republicans, they may have just topped themselves by admitting that they want to try and unimpeach failed, one-term, twice-impeached former President Donald Trump if they happen to win the upcoming midterm elections.
Earlier today, Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) introduced a resolution that would completely expunge Trump’s second impeachment, the one that focused on his attempt to stage a coup and overturn the results of a free an fair presidential election.
“Resolved, That the January 13, 2021, impeachment of President Donald John Trump is expunged, as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives, the facts and circumstances upon which such Article was based met the burden of proving neither that President Trump committed ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’, as set forth in section 4 of Article II of the Constitution, nor that President Trump engaged in ‘insurrection or rebellion against the United States’, such that he is forever precluded from ‘hold[ing] any office under the United States’ pursuant to section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”
Yes, Congressman Mullin and his co-sponsors are literally trying to rewrite history by making it appear that Trump played no role in January 6, 2021 and should never have been impeached because he did nothing wrong, even though the facts clearly suggest otherwise.
Of course, Mullin and other brainwashed pro-Trump Republicans may wind up with a entire carton of eggs on their faces when the House Select Committee on the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection holds public hearings next month, as evidence is laid out for the American people which is likely to show that Trump and members of Congress played active roles in the attack which left five people dead and has resulted in the prosecution of hundreds of rioters.
Even though their continued devotion to failed, one-term, twice-impeached former President Donald Trump is dragging down Republicans in the polls, they simply cannot help themselves when they’re asked a question about the Donald. They always defend him, frequently looking like complete fools as they tie themselves in rhetorical knots.
That’s exactly what happened to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the House minority whip who was asked about Trump’s infamous 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in which the then-president attempted to extort Zelensky by suggesting he’d agree to release military aid to Ukraine in exchange for damaging information on Joe Biden or members of his family.
Rather than admit Trump had been wrong to do what he did, Scalise desperately tried to suggest that Zelensky had praised Trump for his “leadership.”
“You look at that conversation. President Zelensky had called President Trump to thank him for the leadership he provided. When Zelensky got elected, he said he modeled after President Trump’s, and ultimately, he got the relief money he wanted.
“President Trump stood with President Zelensky. In fact, the two of them had a really good relationship. In fact, when President Zelensky was asking for things like the Javelin missiles that the Biden and Obama administration said no to. President Trump said yes, and actually helped Ukraine get those tank-busting missiles that they needed and frankly have been using.”
Reporter: Given where we are right now, what rethinking have you done on Trump’s withholding of military aid to Zelenskyy as he pressured to investigate Biden Scalise: If you look at that conversation, President Zelenskyy had called President Trump to thank him for the leadership pic.twitter.com/8o5xyTw1wB
Nope. That’s not what happened. Not even close. And we know that because we have the White House transcript of that conversation which was read into the record as part of Trump’s first impeachment:
“I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
In other words: Sure, we can send you the military aid you need to defend yourself from Russia, but first you’re gonna have to play ball and help me win reelection.
Scalise was hit with a brutal fact-checking on Twitter.
HaHaHa
Except it's not funny. Trump tried to extort "a favor" from Zelensky – opening a meritless investigation into Joe Biden, in exchange for releasing security aid Congress had voted to send Ukraine. The House impeached Trump for it. Only Romney voted w/ Democrats to convict. https://t.co/LWQM1WDco5
Scalise rewriting Trump's phone call with Zelenskiy. In fact, Trump was impeached for trying to strong-arm Zelenskiy into providing "non-existent" dirt on Biden in return for the release of U.S. weapons supplies, including Javelin ATGMs. https://t.co/UmvXRNFNnJ
Don't let people like Steve Scalise gaslight you on what happened: Trump illegally withheld military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to extort Zelenskyy into setting up the Bidens. He got impeached for it, and Scalise and every other Republican in the House voted to let him off.
I mean- Scalise is lying of course. But that’s what he does. We ALL know that th former guy withheld aid as part of a quid pro quo. An as an aside, while none of what he’s saying is even remotely true- the fact that he says Zelensky & trump had a great relationship is laughable. pic.twitter.com/giQNJy1zEL
For years now, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been a lightning rod for criticism, in part for his right-wing rulings and controversial past which nearly derailed his nomination when he was accused of sexually harassing Anita Hill while both worked at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Now Thomas is once again in hot water thanks to two blatant conflicts of interest that have some legal experts saying the justice could well face impeachment.
The first controversy stems from a dissent made by Thomas regarding documents sought by the House Select Committee on the January 6 Capitol insurrection. He was the only member of the high court to rule that former President Donald Trump could keep documents hidden from the committee.
At the same time Thomas made his ruling, his wife, Ginni, was actively engaged in activism against the Jan. 6 investigation, which led University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck to note during an appearance on CNN:
“There are surely substantive reasons, consistent with his jurisprudence, why Justice Thomas dissented from the Court’s decision to not help President Trump in that case. But for folks who are already skeptical of the Court, for folks who already view it as a deeply partisan, political institution, the fact that he is the sole dissenter, given what we know about Ginni Thomas’s involvement, sets off alarm bells.”
Pamela Brown of CNN fleshed out exactly how deeply involved Justice Thomas’ wife has been in trying to derail a full investigation of the Jan. 6 riots:
“The debate has continued because of Ginni Thomas’s ties to another issue before the court she sits on the advisory board of a conservative group, the National Association of Scholars. They submitted two legal briefs to the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiffs challenging affirmative action and admissions at two universities. Peter Wood is president of the organization, and said that she played no role in the legal briefs.”
The other conflict for Thomas is the revelation that he’s been in “regular contact” with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) via email, which was reported by Politico on Friday:
Emails handed over to American Oversight, a group that bills itself as a government watchdog, suggest that DeSantis is in regular contact with Justice Clarence Thomas. In June 2021, Thomas’ wife, Ginni, who runs her own consulting firm, worked with the DeSantis administration to have the governor talk to a coalition of groups, including people affiliated with Judicial Watch, the conservative organization that uses information requests and lawsuits to investigate public officials.
Why is a potential 2024 Republican presidential contender communicating with a sitting Supreme Court justice? Even if they’re only discussing the weather or the Super Bowl, the appearance suggests something less than kosher. And that alone could lead to calls for Thomas to be impeached.
Are there enough Republican senators willing to cross the aisle and remove Justice Thomas from the court? Probably not, but an impeachment trial might convince Thomas that the time has come for him to step down.
Clarence Thomas has always been an illegitimate member of the highest court in the land. And his actions since he joined the Supreme Court are proof that he doesn’t belong there.
According to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), now that former President Donald Trump has been impeached and acquitted for a second time, Vice President Kamala Harris should be the next public official to face impeachment.
Graham appeared on “Fox News Sunday” and suggested that if Republicans win back control of the House of Representatives in 2022, Harris might be facing impeachment for supporting members of the Black Lives Matter movement who protested the killing of George Floyd by police officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota, last year:
“The trial record was a complete joke. Hearsay on top of hearsay, and we’ve opened Pandora’s Box for future presidents and if you use this model, I don’t know how Kamala Harris doesn’t get impeached if Republicans take over the House because she actually bailed out rioters, and more of the rioters went back to the streets and broke somebody’s head open, so we’ve opened Pandora’s Box here, and I’m sad for the country.”
Lindsey Graham suggests Kamala Harris will be impeached if Republicans take back the House next year pic.twitter.com/J68Or4k1la
Harris didn’t bail out any rioters. The Washington Postdestroyed that GOP lie in September of 2020. All she did was tweet out support for the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF), which provides assistance for those accused of crimes.
It’s clear that Lindsey Graham still has his nose stuck so far up Donald Trump’s ass that he can’t tell if it’s day or night. But his allegiance to the failed, one-term president is little more than a play for political cover. If Graham continues to blindly march in lockstep with Trump, he may find out that the country — and his constituents — have passed him by.
