We’re going to inaugurate a new occasional feature here at YSDA: Today’s Impeachable Offense, wherein we make the case that something the convicted felon Donald Trump did would be impeachable if the rule of law still applied.
We’ll make no pretense about keeping up with this as it’d take volumes just to get up to date on the impeachable things this guy has done in just his first month or so in office. But it’s important not to lose our bearings. Trump has lowered the bar to such a subterranean level — or rather raised the bar for impeachment so high — that it’s easy to fall into the trap of saying, “oh, that’s just Trump.”
So, we’ll make it a point around here to remind ourselves of just how thoroughly awful this guy is. We’re confident he’ll never stop providing us with material.
Let’s start with today’s highlighted impeachable offense: dropping credible charges of corruption against New York Mayor Eric Adams in exchange for something, probably cooperation with ICE, but I wouldn’t rule out some sort of indirect financial payoff to convicted felon Trump.
To quote the New York Times story: Mr. Adams was indicted on five counts of bribery conspiracy, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations. The order by Emil Bove III, the Justice Department’s acting No. 2 official, did not clear Mr. Adams of wrongdoing. Mr. Bove said he had not assessed “the strength of the evidence.”
And keep in mind that Adams is a Democrat and a Black man at that. Adams was indicted by the DOJ under Joe Biden or, more accurately, under its independent Attorney General Merrick Garland. So much for the baseless assertion that Biden also politicized the Justice Department or that everything revolved around DEI.
So, even Trump’s DOJ admits they didn’t act based on the likelihood of a conviction. They didn’t care if he was guilty. This follows a trip Adams made down to Mar a Lago to pay tribute to Trump. Nobody knows what was said or what was promised in that meeting, but it’s fair to assume that neither party brought up what was best for the country or for the people of New York. It’s fair to say that the discussion was somewhat more personally transactional.
Expect to see Adams do all he can to cooperate with ICE on Trump’s promised mass deportations of illegal aliens. Now, you certainly can make a case that, absent the apparent quid pro quo, this is in bounds. I don’t think “sanctuary cities” — something New York has declared itself to be — are a good idea. If someone is in the country illegally, well, they are by definition breaking the law and it doesn’t seem to me that it’s okay to not cooperate in the enforcement of that law. After all, there are sheriffs in northern Wisconsin who have declared their counties sanctuaries for gun rights in the absolutist way they define them. Is that okay? I don’t think so.
On the other hand, Trump’s mass deportation of otherwise law-abiding noncitizens is just stupid and self-defeating. We need the workers. A sensible solution would be a path to citizenship for the 11 million or so people who are here illegally — but only after they’ve admitted they committed a crime and paid some symbolic fine.
So, I think both extremes are wrong. It’s wrong for cities to try to block the enforcement of the laws and it’s wrong for Trump to try to deport people who aren’t causing trouble.
But back to Adams. If he had reached that conclusion honestly and reversed course on working with ICE that would be one thing. But if he does it now it will clearly be because he made a deal with Trump to drop charges of corruption that seem highly plausible.
That is corruption on Trump’s part. He should be impeached for it.
YSDA stands for:
Free speech.
The rule of law.
Reason.
Tolerance.
Pluralism.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
“but I wouldn’t rule out some sort of indirect financial payoff to convicted felon Trump.”
Something like 10% for the big guy?
Missing the good, decent man Joe Biden.
LikeLike
Falling into the deflection game? Someone mentions a Con doing something immoral or corrupt: look at that D who did something immoral or corrupt!
You don’t need to stoop to that, you could just not comment. Is it really that important to defend every action of Trump and Musk?
LikeLike
Sorry to get in between you guys, but I think Rollie’s right here. Because Trump is indefensible, the defense is to not even try to justify him but to use the school yard retort: you did it too! But it’s not apples to apples. Yeah, Biden was dead wrong to pardon his son and his other family members. I’ve been brutal in my criticism of him for that, saying he destroyed his own legacy. But it’s not equivalent to pardoning 1,500 people, all of whom tried to overturn an election and some of whom attacked police officers.
LikeLike
Hey Dave’s the moderate here. I shouldn’t have to point out Biden’s impeachable offenses should I? Maybe I missed that column.
Why is it so important to you to criticize every action of Trump and Musk? I’m genuinely curious… is stopping wars and eliminating government waste in the face of a 36.5 trillion dollar debt not a good thing?
Please don’t deflect to but we have to raise taxes. I want us to clean things up and see where we stand. And yeah, that means not being in favor of tax cuts in the immediate future. So much for defending every action huh?
LikeLike
Nothing wrong with stopping wars, but caving to Putin is wrong. It’s appeasement. Putin attacked a country that posed him no threat. Nothing wrong with trying to bring peace to the Middle East. But turning Gaza into a Trump resort? And as for government spending, sure, go after waste in the Pentagon, where the really big bucks are. But shutting down entire agencies? Firing people willy-nilly? And doing it all without consulting Congress? And, what are these impeachable offenses that Joe Biden committed and how on earth is he more corrupt then Trump?
LikeLike
Dave it’s cute that you think Biden was the good guy until the pardons. Not apples to apples is correct though – Biden’s corruption was much worse.
You do you but you are not a moderate.
LikeLike
One Eye,
“Why is it so important to you to criticize every action of Trump and Musk?”
Because they work for me and are doing a bad job at it. I never thought people shouldn’t criticize any other president. But “free speech” Trump and Musk sure don’t think anyone should be allowed to say what they want.
“I’m genuinely curious… is stopping wars and eliminating government waste in the face of a 36.5 trillion dollar debt not a good thing?”
Stopping wars: kind of depends on the context. If it’s allowing all Palestinians to be killed – that would “end the war”… if it’s just letting Russia take over any county they wish, that would “end the war”. I’m impressed that you believe Trump when he says he won’t start any wars.
Government waste? Sure. But they’re not doing so legally or effectively. Indiscriminately shutting things down “eliminates waste” and eliminates non-waste. A rational approach would be to figure out what to cut then do it in the budget process. This isn’t a rational process, it’s a performance.
I had thought you were wary of corporate power. Here we have a corporate giant and major government contractor looking through any government information they want, controlling what parts of government even exist, and looking for “fraud and abuse” by his competing government contractors. Is corporate power only a threat when they donate to Democrats?
LikeLike
“Is corporate power only a threat when they donate to Democrats?”
You tell me. Elon was firmly in the Democrat camp until very recently.
As for fixing the government budget, you are both saying we just need to do what we’ve always done and hope for a different outcome. Definition of insanity.
LikeLike
I have consistently been against corporate power regardless of which political party is the “beneficiary.” That is one of my primary criticisms of the Democratic Party. I took my turn, now you tell me.
“Doing what we’re always done” is simply following the law. Budgets are laws. If our elected officials can’t figure out how to reduce budgets, perhaps they don’t really want to do it and they’re putting on a political show. Are you on board with the “ends justify the means” angle being floated by the administration – where the executive is above the law?
As an aside, I don’t even think the debt is as big a deal as you do. So it’s definitely not something we should throw away our democracy to address. Especially as DOGE isn’t even solving the issue! It’s just nibbling on margins and making a show for the base. You tried earlier to steer me away from saying it, but here it is: the debt can’t be reduced without a combination of higher taxes, reduced defense spending, and reduced SS/Medicare/aid spending. Anyone who’s not doing that is not addressing the debt.
LikeLike
One man’s nibbling on the margins is another’s BILLIONS of dollars. It may get even bigger than that.
As for doing it for the base – yes possibly for the anti-government sentiment. But I’d wager most of the base doesn’t even know or care about the debt problem. It’s been a bipartisan endeavor that got us here.
As far as any of this being unlawful, that’s up to the courts. I can see the point of Trump’s statement but it’s dangerous. Isn’t that what Fauci et al did, declaring an emergency so they could institute draconian measures? Obviously anyone who thinks the debt is not an emergency will not agree with Trump.
LikeLike
You missed the heart of the discussion: Is corporate power only a threat when they donate to Democrats? Should the president be above the law?
Most of the base wants to stick-it-to-the-libs: this DOGE performance isn’t about the debt, it’s about making liberals mad (and weakening the government in general, and favoring corporations who are “in the club” which is a great thing for our oligarchy).
You say it’s up to the courts, but the administration is already setting the table to defy the courts if they don’t get their way. The only people with any power to change the course we’re on are Trump Voters themselves, if they call their R senators and representatives and let them know that they’ll never vote R again if they don’t put a check to this.
I don’t have much faith in this happening- but I do believe there could be something that could cause you to do that, as I don’t think you’re a blind supporter. (not saying you even voted for Trump, just that as a supporter of some of his actions you’d be a stronger candidate to be taken seriously by R officials than me)
LikeLike
Well we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I don’t accept what you think is the heart of the discussion. I sure don’t accept that Elon Musk is DOGEING to make the libs mad.
LikeLike