Tom Steyer — the guy in all those anti-Trump ads — answers some questions about impeachment

REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Tom Steyer: "The only way that [impeachment and removal] will happen is that the American people, including independents and Republicans, decide that something [Trump] has done is so bad that he has to go."

Billionaire Tom Steyer thinks we need to impeach Donald Trump. He does more than think about it, though: He is funding and is heavily involved in running an organization called “Need to Impeach,” and he spent yesterday in Minneapolis for a “Need to Impeach” rally, which consisted mostly of him answering questions and responding to comments from the audience, and to give a few interviews, including one to yours truly.

I admit that I liked him and am more than a little embarrassed at how many of my questions were about how unlikely it is that Trump will be impeached.

In my defense, it probably is unlikely, most especially if “impeachment,” which technically is the first step, requiring the support of a mere majority of the U.S. House, also implies removed from office by the U.S. Senate, which requires a hard-to-imagine two thirds vote in the U.S. Senate to convict a president of the “high crimes and misdemeanors” alleged by the House.

Still, knowing the future is not among my gifts. And Trump probably is guilty of impeachable offenses. It’s just hard to imagine that two-thirds vote in the Senate, considering that even the most anti-Trump Senate Republicans have never suggested that impeachment was the appropriate remedy, and that some of the most anti-Trump Republicans are leaving the Senate. (Jeff Flake, for example.)

But while Steyer amiably indulged my skepticism and answered my questions, some of his comments amounted to: So what do you, journo-skeptic, propose to do about the menace that the current incumbent poses to the American experiment in self-government?

Point taken. Maybe I just fell into an old journo-trap of thinking that the job is to ask the hardest and most skeptical question I can come up with. So let me give Steyer space for a long response to my line of questions, most of which amounted to: How can impeachment and removal, requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate, actually happen?

Said Steyer:

The only way that [impeachment and removal] will happen is that the American people, including independents and Republicans, decide that something [Trump] has done is so bad that he has to go.

And I would have thought that the recent evidence of a $500 million payment from a Chinese company to [Trump’s] firm, might be something that bad. It’s a smoking gun to me. It’s clearly an emolument. It’s clearly illegal. It’s clearly unconstitutional. Directly and explicitly [me: that’s a reference to the “emoluments clause” of the Constitution]. It’s an enormous amount of money, directly paid to him from a Communist government. It’s amazing.

But that happened, without anybody paying any attention, so I guess I guess no, that’s not it.

“So what can we do?” he asked — and then answered: “We can keep trying to tell the truth.

“We’re trying to stand up for American values and our democracy. And we’re pushing as hard as we can. For what would be the right thing [that’s a reference to impeachment]. So if you’re saying to me, ‘Yeah, but it could be a long steep slog, Tom, there are forces arrayed against you.’ I agree.”

Steyer claims to have started other public campaigns, mostly in the California context, that he was told were hopeless, and to have succeeded. He added:

But of anyone wants to take this job, [“Need to Impeach”] will gladly hand them the keys and walk away. But right now, it’s a job that needs to be done and no one else seems to want to do it. We have a lawless president who is undermining our laws and getting away with it, and no one wants to speak up.  So, you know what, I must have a self-immolation problem.

We do have 5.4 million people who have signed up with us. We are, by far, the biggest organizers of people under 35 in nation. So if someone want to take this off my hands, I will hand them the keys to the car this instant and they can drive it away. But there doesn’t seem to be anyone who wants to do what we’re doing right now. And y’know what: it’s really important that it be done.

It’s not like [Trump]’s gonna go straight. That’s not gonna happen. He’s gonna get more crooked. He’s not gonna stop obstructing justice. He’s obstructing justice at this second.

He’s not gonna stop profiting personally from business with foreign governments, cuz he does it every day. So the events are just gonna keep going on and so are we.

[Impeachment] is never going to happen unless and until the American people decide it should. And that’s probably right. This should probably never happen unless the American people have decided they want it to.

As I mentioned above, I was starting to feel awkward about the line of my questioning, so I brought up the fact that most of the smarty-pants experts believed it was impossible at various points in 2016 that Donald Trump could be elected were proven wrong.

“That’s what I say,” Steyer responded. “Everybody who claims to know so much about how these things are going to go, and how the polls look, and what tactics will work and what wont, nobody’s been right. So what are we gonna do to stand up for what’s right. That’s all we’re saying. We do a ton of grass roots stuff all over the place, but the basic question is who is going to stand up for our democracy, and we’re trying to.”

Steyer also spoke at a public meeting in the St. Anthony Main neighborhood of Minneapolis last night. He made just a few opening remarks and then took questions from the audience, which was totally on his side.

If you have time and inclination to get deeper into the question of what constitutes an impeachable offense, and what Trump has done that might qualify, Steyer/Need to Impeach put a panel of legal scholars who discussed how some things Trump has or may have done might fit the framers’ original idea when they put impeachment into the Constitution, there’s an hour-long video of that panel here. I admit I learned a lot from it.

Comments (44)

  1. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/31/2018 - 12:18 pm.

    Mixed Feelings

    I’m not sure how I feel about impeaching Trump. On the one hand, I would love to see him leave the White House. He has not shown that he is worthy of the office of President, and the great wonder of his term so far is that there have been no calamities directly traceable to his ineptness (this wonder may not apply in Puerto Rico). On the other hand, there are three reasons I am not enamored of the idea right now:

    1. The presidency would be assumed by Mike Pence. Ideologically, Pence is the same, or even worse, than Trump. He does clean up nice, and is nowhere near the epochal crudeness of Trump, so everything objectionable about his politics will be covered by a veneer of respectability (look for the mainstream press to reach for some reason to refer to him as a “pragmatist, not afraid to reach across the aisle to get things done”). That veneer would just obscure his hard-core conservatism. No, thanks.

    2. The very idea would rile up Trump’s base even more. Right now, the threat of impeachment is used as a talking point by conservative strategists. It doesn’t matter what crimes he has committed–he’s Their Man, and nothing is going to get them to turn away. One would have to hunt very hard to find Republicans in Congress with enough integrity (and courage) to make a public call for Trump’s removal. Run an election campaign promising to implement impeachment, and the outrage would be blinding. Heck, you might think Congress was kneeling at a football game.

    3. It’s a distraction. There are so many things that could be accomplished if Congress grew a collective spine and stopped toadying to Trump. If they started acting like a co-equal branch of government with constitutional law making responsibilities, the worst excesses of the Trump presidency could be, at least, ameliorated. Spending time trying to orchestrate an impeachment would just divert time and resources from those efforts.

    On balance, impeachment has its attractions that do not outweigh its drawbacks. It’s not a great thing to be discussing right now.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 05/31/2018 - 12:40 pm.

      good points

      Pence is the best protection that Trump has.
      We will know a lot more in November. If the Dems take back the House (the Senate would be a long shot) then Trump’s ability to do harm will be greatly reduced.

      • Submitted by Pat Berg on 05/31/2018 - 05:21 pm.

        Some days . . . . .

        Some days, when I stop to consider it, I think that that’s the actual reason Trump picked Pence (rather than just because Pence was the only person who would take the job).

  2. Submitted by Tim Smith on 05/31/2018 - 12:35 pm.

    Keep on dividin’

    Nice to know the uber rich elites have nothing better to do with their money. Sad and pathetic sideshow.

  3. Submitted by Curtis Senker on 05/31/2018 - 12:58 pm.

    I’m not sure, but this may be the first time in our history where partisan zealots have banded together for the purpose of stiching together a case for impeachment from the whole cloth of “may have done”.

    America usually waits until there is a solid piece of evidence; like tape recordings, or a DNA covered dress.

    But by all means, do carry on. In the event, VP Pence would be a completely suitable replacement.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/31/2018 - 01:46 pm.

      Welcome to the United States!

      Apparently you missed the 1990s,when Congressional Republicans started looking for reasons to undo a free election via impeachment from the start of the Clinton Administration. There was no “wait” for solid evidence; there was a decision that impeachment would happen, and the only question was for what (Travelgate? Whitewater? Vince Foster? Monica Lewinsky was darned good luck for them).

      The “whole cloth of ‘may have done'” was what drove the angry mobs at Trump rallies chanting “lock her up!” Of course, you may remember only for purposes of this discussion that Hillary Clinton no longer holds a governmental office, so those are two entirely different things.

      • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 05/31/2018 - 02:26 pm.

        If I’m not mistaken, and I’m not, the “lock her up” movement came about as the result of Comey inventing the “intent” defense to excuse Hillary’s feckless and deliberate jeopardizing of our national security. She really still should be tried, IMO.

        We had the server, remember? Hard evidence, like tapes, or a DNA covered dress that hadn’t quite been wiped clean, like with a rag.

        Clinton’s problems did not come to a head until after it was clear he had purjured himself. Everything else was just the nasty patina they tended to leave.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/31/2018 - 02:53 pm.

          You Are Mistaken

          Comey did not “invent” the “intent defense.” Intent is not a defense. It is an element of the offense, and it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a defendant acted with the requisite criminal intent. Check out “mens rea” and “actus reus,” so you can be even more confident that you’re not mistaken.

          Comey “invented” nothing, unless he single-handedly infiltrated the United States Code to insert the language about intent (and it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if a certain vulgarian in high office started tweeting that idea).

          “Clinton’s problems did not come to a head until after it was clear he had purjured himself.” Your pun aside, that is nonsense. Republicans had been trying to find something, anything to hang on President Clinton almost from day one. The Monica Lewinsky matter that looms so large in the salacious parts of the Republican psyche, was actually a byproduct of the Whitewater nothingburger.

          • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 05/31/2018 - 03:51 pm.

            No sir, I am not mistaken.

            18 USC 793 (f)

            Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
            Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

            You will note, the absence of the intent clause.

            We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 05/31/2018 - 04:43 pm.

              Yes, You Are

              We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own jurisprudence. “Criminal intent” is shorthand for the state of mind necessary to commit the crime.

              “Criminal intent is the state of mind operative at the time of an action, and may be specific or general. The term is an elastic one which describes a variety of culpable states, such as purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence” 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law: Substantive Principles § 28.

              Comey said there was no evidence of gross negligence; therefore, no evidence of criminal intent.

              “Being a Clinton” is not a crime, no matter how much you might wish it to be (U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, para. 3).

              • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 05/31/2018 - 05:24 pm.

                Comey said Hillary was “extremely careless”. That sounds like parsing “reckless” to me; but that’s my interpretation.

                Being someone who values our justice system, I think she should have the opportunity to prove, to a jury of citizens, her recklessness was elastic ebough to be merely the result of her incompetence, and not deliberate.

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/01/2018 - 09:16 am.

                  “Extremely careless” is not the same as “grossly negligent.” “Gross negligence” is defined as “a lack of slight diligence or care; a conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of a legal duty and the consequences of the actions.”

                  I know you desperately want Hillary Clinton to be found guilty of something–anything!–but “extreme carelessness” just does not meet that definition.

                  “Being someone who values our justice system, I think she should have the opportunity to prove, to a jury of citizens, her recklessness was elastic ebough to be merely the result of her incompetence, and not deliberate.” Not that you’ve made up your mind in advance, or anything.

                  As someone who values our justice system, you should know that’s not how things work. The defendant is not haled into court to prove that she is not guilty. It is the obligation of the prosecutor to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person has committed all of the requisite elements of a crime. An ethical prosecutor will not bring cases just to bring them (“Let’s see you prove you were merely incompetent, you harridan!”). They will only bring those cases they believe could result in a conviction.

                  • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/01/2018 - 10:51 am.

                    To get this back to the topic; there are millions of Americans who believe Hillary was reckless, and that she acted in spite of knowing, or should have known, she was acting recklessly.

                    Millions of us believe Comey conspired with the AG to keep her out of jail. We want her indicted and tried.

                    That is what “Lock her up” means.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/01/2018 - 11:19 am.

                      “Millions Believe!”

                      Since when do the beliefs of “millions” override the clear provisions of the law?

                      “We want her indicted and tried.” I’m sure you do, but there needs to be probable cause to believe she committed a crime. And a bunch of people riled up by what they hear on Fox News or at a Ted Nugent concert is not “probable cause.”

                      “That is what “Lock her up” means.” Well, there’s some nuance for you. It sounds more like the trial of the Knave of Hearts: “‘No, no!’ said the Queen. ‘Sentence first–verdict afterwards.'”

                    • Submitted by Curtis Senker on 06/01/2018 - 12:26 pm.

                      Obama’s FBI Director and AG decided to forego charges. There is absolutely no prohibition against a re-examination by the more professional and dedicated team in office today.

                      The law makes provision for just that.

                    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/01/2018 - 01:17 pm.

                      Re-Examination Until They Get it Right!

                      “More professional and dedicated?” Do you really think “professionalism” matters to Trump? For that matter, do you think he cares about any “dedication” except dedication to him?

                      Of course, if by “more professional and dedicated” you mean “slavishly loyal to a vindictive executive,” you might be on to something. I’m sure that’s the real goal here.

                      It does not speak well for our democracy, but there is no prohibition against it.

                    • Submitted by Cameron Parkhurst on 06/03/2018 - 06:52 am.

                      Please identify

                      the “more professional and dedicated team in office today.” Do you mean the one that Trump keeps attacking in his tweets?

                    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/01/2018 - 03:29 pm.

                      And tens of millions

                      believe that Trump should be impeached.
                      So by your logic ….

            • Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 06/01/2018 - 09:27 am.

              Espionage

              Please explain how the hacking of the servers of a candidate and her campaign involve national secrets and national security? How can anything hacked from a political campaign’s servers become espionage even if the servers’ owners were grossly negligent?

        • Submitted by Jon Kingstad on 05/31/2018 - 03:50 pm.

          What crime, please?

          “. . . the `lock her up’ movement came about as a result of Comey inventing the `intent’ defense to excuse Hillary’s feckless and deliberate jeopardizing of our national security.”
          So, she needs to be tried? If so, for what crime?

          On the other hand, we have a sitting president interfering with an FBI investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russian, i.e. the Putin government to spread disinformation. In terms of hard evidence, Trump’s own public actions provide a lot more “hard evidence” of high crimes and misdemeanors against him than anything ever imagined against Hillary Clinton. Even if the investigation turns up no evidence of collusion with the Russians, or Trump’s attempts to derail the investigation are not enough, do you really believe that the conduct identified by Mr. Steyer in the article would not qualify as “high crimes or misdemeanors”?

        • Submitted by Sean Olsen on 06/01/2018 - 08:58 am.

          Well, then…

          Are you going to prosecute Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and all the Bush White House aides who disappeared 20 million e-mails on RNC servers, too? If not, why not?

  4. Submitted by Ron Gotzman on 05/31/2018 - 02:19 pm.

    such praise….

    WOW! Such praise for a billionaire, environmental hypocrite, hedge fund founder, self-promoter, big money campaign Koch-like contributor, and dirty coal investor, Tom Steyer.

    With those credentials and if he were a member of the GOP he would be dismissed.

    • Submitted by Matt Haas on 05/31/2018 - 08:06 pm.

      The knife cuts both ways

      So if cons are so down on this guy, apparently for the laundry list of reasons you’ve stated, why not the others?

  5. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 05/31/2018 - 04:09 pm.

    When neither the facts nor the law are on your side–

    You do ad hominem attacks on the person whose argument you’re desperate to demolish. That’s what Mr. Gotzman is doing.

    Gotzman and Mr. Senker and Mr. Smith would rather not look at what Tom Steyer is saying: That Donald Trump has committed a number of unconstitutional and unlawful (i.e., contrary to statute) acts that make him a true danger to our democracy He is calling for Trump’s impeachment–which means bringing Trump to trial before Congress for those acts in the resounding echo of leadership silence in Washington.

    We risk not seeing the forest for the many distracting trees Trump blurbs about on Twitter. He is corrupt, venal autocratic and leading us to one-man rule (you think he pays attention to Congress? I don’t).

    It needs to be said and repeated again and again: Donald Trump’s behavior in office is not normal, not acceptable to the majority of Americans, and more worthy of impeachment than any other president in our history, and I include Richard Nixon in that .

    Let’s not get bogged down in Trump’s deepening swamp with inside-baseball score-keeping about whether the House or the Senate will impeach him. They won’t. They’re all getting richer with Trump (Trump’s personal annual tax cut under his new bill: $31 million. Annually. Not bad, eh?).

    That doesn’t mean that Trump shouldn’t be called out, again and again, for misfeasance and malfeasance in office. Keep the narrative in front of us, Mr Steyer!

  6. Submitted by Neal Rovick on 05/31/2018 - 09:19 pm.

    For those who insist that the whole Russian investigation is a “nothing-burger” I suggest you familiarize yourself with the hundreds of people who, somehow, ‘innocently of course’, managed to have secret meetings and arrangements and ties with the Russians during the campaign and presidency….

    https://www.politico.com/interactives/2018/trump-russia-investigation-ties/

    The only thing such an insistence of “nothing there” does is just makes others question your reasoning power.

  7. Submitted by Joe Musich on 05/31/2018 - 11:39 pm.

    I am pleased to say..

    I did attend the Impeach Town Meeting/ Rally. Some posting here would not have done well there. I became less skeptical as the evening progressed. I walked in thinking,” I am going to trust a billionaire !” That meltec away as I listened to people ask their questions. There were people there looking for the truth despite the long odds. I felt great to be among folks who could lean on one another in this time of madness. There is no need to us to invest one iota of energy in Hillary emails. She is not in office nor is she pulling the scams that the one to be impeached has put on the table. There is no comparison except in the logic of self delusion. Wait til the coming talk of constitutional convention begins from this crowd of authoritarian capitalists. Yea Impeach Now to save the nation.

  8. Submitted by Tim Smith on 06/01/2018 - 08:52 am.

    Objective Journalism

    should be asking the tough questions no matter where they lead. Why apologize for that? What does it matter if you sort of like him or not? How about proof and facts to make the case, or do liberal billionaires have different standards?.

  9. Submitted by Pat Terry on 06/01/2018 - 01:16 pm.

    Waste of time

    Impeachment is only on the table if the president’s conduct is so egregious that his own party is willing to impeach. That hasn’t happened.

    Also, Trump is dishonest, ignorant and cruel, but I don’t think he’s committed any high crimes. Or more specifically, there isn’t evidence of that yet.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/01/2018 - 01:44 pm.

      High Crimes

      There has long been a debate on whether the “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” referred to in the Constitution means only statutory criminal offenses. During the pre-impeachment proceedings in the Nixon years, a staff memo from the House Judiciary Committee (if I recall correctly) made that case. Twenty-some years later, Congressional Republicans took great delight in pointing out that Hillary Rodham was one of the authors of that memo.

      A violation of the Emoluments Clause would be an impeachable offense, even if it is not a criminal violation (e.g. if there was no explicit quid pro quo to make it bribery).

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/01/2018 - 03:31 pm.

        Cass Sunstein

        wrote a good book on the topic of impeachment.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/01/2018 - 03:53 pm.

          Sunstein

          I just went to look for his book online, and saw that he also did a short bibliography on impeachment in the NY Times last fall.

          It looks like I have my summer reading.

  10. Submitted by chuck holtman on 06/01/2018 - 06:03 pm.

    No patriot should favor impeachment at this time.

    Yes, the Trump presidency is destroying our democracy more rapidly than anyone had imagined possible. Yes, it is the most consequential of the authoritarian trends undermining the foundations of civilization across the globe today. Yes, Trump’s removal from office would interrupt the blows for the moment. But focusing on Trump is a fatal error.

    The problem is not Trump. The problem is the one-third of us so thoroughly in thrall to the authoritarian appeal that it voted for Trump and gives Trump its unabated fealty impervious to any reality or moral principle. And the problem is the political party that, for electoral purposes, has spent half a century exploiting fear to cultivate that appeal, and that from cravenness and cowardice will continue to husband the electoral base it has created, without concern for the fate of any person or of humanity at large. Trump is the symbol of the malignancy, not the malignancy itself. He could just as well be an emperor’s horse.

    If Trump were simply dispatched, replaced by Pence, the responsible media and establishment Democrats would swoon in relief. Not only would the Republican establishment escape responsibility for the most profound of crimes against nation and world, it would be embraced euphorically as the return of the responsible partner in governance. The intact party would remain, controlling still the base that wishes from governance not the protection and improvement of the welfare of all, but only the suffering of others. Pence and many others wait in line, quite as competent at narrating fantasies about false enemies while taking everything and laying the remains of our democratic landscape only further to waste.

    Trump’s exit offers no hope, unless it is accompanied by two things. First, the dismantling of the Republican party in favor of a new political formation grounded on principles and practices legitimate within a democracy. Second, a fundamental commitment to building a citizenry that understands that civic responsibility requires critical and moral thought and a commitment to the good of all, and that therefore is ready to resist the authoritarianism that, it seems, forever will lie in wait.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/02/2018 - 09:30 am.

      The best strategy

      is what the Republicans did to Bill Clinton:
      Impeach him and use the accusations to tie him up for the rest of his term without ever convicting him of the offense for which he was originally charged.
      As you say, a President Pence could be worse than Trump.

  11. Submitted by joe smith on 06/02/2018 - 11:48 am.

    First of all, you need some evidence of

    an impeachable offense, nobody has seen or heard of that (believe me, if they had it, the leaks would have sprung) with the current special council. Secondly, you need 2/3’rds of the lawmakers to vote on impeachment, will not happen. 3rd and most importantly, you would derail an economy finally hitting stride after the 08 mortgage driven collapse. Finally we are growing at around a 3% rate, remember Paul Krugman (Nobel winner, college professor and never actually ran a business) said “the American economy is too diverse to grow at more than 1.8%. With every .1 percent jump in GDP another 250 billion new dollars are being created by Americans. That growth leads to new and higher paying jobs (wages increasing at 3.2% expected in 2018).
    Why with our economy growing, folks by the 10’s of thousands are getting off welfare, over 350k manufacturing jobs have been created since 16 election, consumer confidence is at a 20 year high, small business confidence the same, the unemployment rate for blacks, Latinos and everyone keeps coming down.
    There is hope of a 4%+ GDP jump in the coming few quarters. Why in the world would anyone want to change that back to the 08-16 levels?

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/02/2018 - 04:55 pm.

      First of all

      impeachment does not require evidence — just a vote in the House.
      Even conviction by the Senate does not require evidence; just a vote. The Framers deliberately left the grounds for impeachment vague, although they did specifically include bribery!
      If Republicans in the Senate decided they’d rather campaign besides Pence than Trump, that’s all it would take.
      This is not a court of law.

      As for Krugman’s statement; I believe that he made it a few administrations ago.
      Unlike (some) politicians, academics will admit mistakes.
      As for economic conditions, real wages have not risen in at lest 20 years, and inequality (see the Gini coefficient) is at a record high in the United States.
      According to FRED, real GDP is at its lowest level in years (it has been decreasing since the 1950’s).
      About the only area where there has been a real increase is the cherry picking of data.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 06/04/2018 - 08:59 am.

      Why Derail It?

      So if the economy is doing well, we should overlook impeachable offenses by the President?

      Was that the logic the Republicans used when they voted to impeach President Clinton?

  12. Submitted by joe smith on 06/03/2018 - 07:47 am.

    Why would Krugman say GDP

    numbers wouldn’t be above 1.8% in past administrations when Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II all had GDP growth well above 3%? Wages are increasing. Jobs are being created. Small businesses are more confident now than the past 20 years. Unemployment for blacks at all time lows. No cherry picking just facts.
    As I said, why would regular working folks want to go back to taxing and regulating businesses so less money can be created? There is dignity in working and bringing home a paycheck, why would regular folks choose to go back to welfare or unemployment insurance?
    You may not like Trump but it will take some evidence to get 2/3’rds of the congress to vote to impeach.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 06/03/2018 - 09:39 pm.

      Where did Krugman say this?

      I can’t find it anyplace.
      Again, see FRED for real data.
      Most of the new jobs are in service industries at low wages.
      Real wages (adjusted for inflation) have grown about 10% since 1973; less than 1%/year.
      Black unemployment is low, but so is black employment. See Michelle Alexander’s book on the effects of high incarceration rates.
      And of course there is no dignity in bringing home a paycheck that won’t feed your family.

      • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 06/04/2018 - 10:28 am.

        Let’s add to that the fact that a major reason the unemployment rate just announced is so low, is that hundreds of thousands, even millions of people have dropped out of the labor market completely. They used to be there, seeking work, but have given up. Without them the “new” service jobs amount to more of the total, thus a low jobless rate. Duh.

        I wonder how good the economy is when the President has to consider, as he is, FORCING–i.e. requiring by Presidential fiat– the electric energy industry to buy power from coal-burning and nuclear plants, instead of the more earth-friendly natural gas and all the wind and solar renewables our power companies have been turning to.

        Trump is all about having an “issue” he can present to his fairly naive [economically] base supporters, so he can say that hes “saving jobs” in the coal mines. Never mind anything about traditional Republican free markets. BUY COAL! I need you to BUY COAL! You must BUY COAL–and damn the earth’s health.

        Final note to Trump supporters: There has not been even one leak from Mueller’s team. Most leaks we’ve seen, on any issue and especially on the Russian influence scandal surrounding the Trump campaign and administration, are from Trump’s own White House. And security leaks to the Russians during Trump’s administration? From Trump himself.

        Are you guys following these little things, or not? Do you realize how scared Trump and team are about what Mueller has been finding out, that they are actually sending that fool Giuliani out to suggest that the president could. . . pardon himself for any high crimes he has committed. Wow.

Leave a Reply